Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
I would also tag these things as free text. The problem space is just too big to encode this in standard tags with a fixed set of values. If you can express the problem more specific and even with less words in free text then in key-value pairs, I would clearly vote for the former. Especially as a lot of those tags would be quite unique and lack data consumer support anyway.f It is just not possible to tag e.g. the whole of Iceland in a way so that you can reliably say which roads are passable by you vehicle and which not. Even when you flood the database with 40+ tags per highway (which makes them almost unmaintainable by mere humans), input all your vehicle information into the router (which will take you the whole day) and there is a precise machine readable weather forcast, there are STILL factors you can't know, that change on a daily basis or depend in chance alone (5cm of water level on a river crossing can make the difference). And even one of those will mean that your calculated route could change completely. You may get a 'forecast' that's about 50% sure to the cost of having almost destroyed OSM for manual editing. If you really think routing based on chances is a goal worth pursuing, than you may also want to tag just that. chance_of_passability = 34%. Yes, this is a completly subjective value based on no deterministic algorithm (and therefore start edit-wars), but the effect on routing will be exactly the same while being easy to edit and maintain. And in the end, that is exactly what you get when some local tells you that the road might be passable or not. You can ask your router to give you a route with a risk (= 100% - combined chance) less than e.g. 2% and you will be routed on primary roads, accept e.g. 20% and you might fail when it's muddy, accept 90% and you might only pass on best of conditioins if you come well prepared. Again: imho even with a myriad of different special tags, in the big picture the reliability of routing will not get much better than this. So why bother? If you really really want to be more precise, I think weather conditions have a value set that is almost managable in size. So chance_of_passability:wet = 10%; chance_of_passability:dry = 80% might be possible. with a fixed (and therefore machine-evaluatable) set of subkeys. But imho you can never achive this for vehicle specifications or physical road condition. The set of possibilities is just to large. A free text note might help to judge the chance a little bit better and is easy to maintain and render. So: why not? If translation is the only problem, I think we might be able to handle this over time. my 2 (more of 200) cents Chaos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
2014/1/15 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org But wherever something can be encoded in an attribute instead of expressed in free text, that is where it should be. But, as this conversation underlines, there might be a diminishing return in encoding extremely rare attributes. this also with respect to languages: if we encourage free text values thought for the end user, it would be logical to translate those in all languages like we do with name-tags, no? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 15 January 2014 00:39, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The tag as proposed leaves much to interpretations. But there are a bunch of things one can say about a road that are crisp and clear: covered_at_high_tide not_plowed_in_winter not_maintained_by_government passing_requires_reversing But at some point you break down into prose and write note='Road maintained by local 4WD club, passes over sandy inlet that floods at high tide, four inch rocks placed by club restrict access to high clearance vehicles, see website for details.' These valid comments make me think that we may be approaching this issue from the wrong angle. We are thinking about how these tags would be interpreted by software, what priorities would be given to objects like not_plowed_in_winter and so on. So instead of having an endless list of possible machine readable tags, we should simple give the information straight to the user. It is then up to the user to decide what to do with this information. My suggestion would be something along the following lines: A tag called traffic_issue which would take free text as value (similar to note) traffic_issue='Road maintained by local 4WD club, passes over sandy inlet that floods at high tide, four inch rocks placed by club restrict access to high clearance vehicles' additional tags for further information: traffic_issue:website=http://website.com traffic_issue:phone=12345678 and of course something for the renderers/routers: traffic_issue:severity=none|minor|major|danger|info|block So what should the renderer do with this information? Quite simply the traffic_issue text should be displayed along the route (like the map notes for example) The routers should simply add the text together with the routing instructions. Then let the user decide what he or she wishes to do with this information. Examples I could think of One which is commonly seen in Brazil: traffic_issue='Traffic of very long vehicles' traffic_issue:severity=info traffic_issue='Intense traffic of bicycles' traffic_issue:severity=minor traffic_issue='Road subject to assaults at night' traffic_issue:severity=danger traffic_issue='Not passable from November to January' traffic_issue:severity=block The last two are notes I've seen on some printed maps in Brazil, they usually are shown as small yellow boxes next to the roads. Here are some other examples from printed maps: Between Poconé and Porto Jofre are 122 bridges in very poor conditions. RS-630 is not passable during the rain season (May to September) The road between Petrolina and Salgueiro should not be travelled at night During my travels I have found this type of information extremely valuable. So perhaps the best we can do is simply pass it on what particular issues we know about the road. The renderers/routers task would simply be showing this information. The user then decides how to handle this. For example, me may instruct the router to ignore all traffic_issue:severity=block warnings if he happens to drive an amphibian vehicle and does not really care about anything. cheers Gerald ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote: [..] A tag called traffic_issue which would take free text as value (similar to note) traffic_issue='Road maintained by local 4WD club, passes over sandy inlet that floods at high tide, four inch rocks placed by club restrict access to high clearance vehicles' [..] and of course something for the renderers/routers: traffic_issue:severity=none|minor|major|danger|info|block I was going to jump at your throat for suggesting a free-text comment attribute... But using it only as a complement to values from an appropriately designed list would make sense. Then remains the issue of what that list of values should be - and doesn't that bring us back to square one ? Also, if I remember correctly, the traffic_issue:severity=block duplicates the meaning of some existing tagging which work just fine as is. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote: RS-630 is not passable during the rain season (May to September) For other tags such as opening times, periods are encoded - which is superior in any case to free text. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 15 January 2014 13:55, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote: RS-630 is not passable during the rain season (May to September) For other tags such as opening times, periods are encoded - which is superior in any case to free text. I've just quoted what I saw on a printed map. Rain seasons are variable, so May to September is very approximate as weather goes. Would it be wise to hard encode it? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
A tag called traffic_issue which would take free text as value (similar to note) traffic_issue='Road maintained by local 4WD club, passes over sandy inlet that floods at high tide, four inch rocks placed by club restrict access to high clearance vehicles' [..] and of course something for the renderers/routers: traffic_issue:severity=none|minor|major|danger|info|block I was going to jump at your throat for suggesting a free-text comment attribute... But using it only as a complement to values from an appropriately designed list would make sense. Then remains the issue of what that list of values should be - and doesn't that bring us back to square one ? I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Why is the problem in passing along a few words of helpful and perhaps life-saving advice in free-text? Especially considering that it may not be possible to convey the exact meaning by a list of pre-established tag-values? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 15/01/2014 18:14, Gerald Weber wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Why is the problem in passing along a few words of helpful and perhaps life-saving advice in free-text? Especially considering that it may not be possible to convey the exact meaning by a list of pre-established tag-values? No problem, as long that this discussion does not end with let's use free text instead of attributes... Which is not what you are advocating - so no problem. But wherever something can be encoded in an attribute instead of expressed in free text, that is where it should be. But, as this conversation underlines, there might be a diminishing return in encoding extremely rare attributes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote: RS-630 is not passable during the rain season (May to September) For other tags such as opening times, periods are encoded - which is superior in any case to free text. Periods are often fuzzy. For example a major highway over a major mountain range in California is closed from first significant snowfall after October, until enough snow melts to plow, or memorial day (whichever comes first) See http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/tiogaopen.htm Go ahead and try to fit that into the opening_hours tag. The tagging *should set rendering.* The tagging *could also* realize that eventually you break into free text. The goal of tagging is to alert the user of the need to read the free text. roadnote:severity=critical roadnote:note:en='Bridge controlled by remote control. Press red button to alert operator. Warning: vehicles on bridge without permission will be destroyed by artillery fire. roadnote:website:en=http://mil.example.gov/red_bridge.htm surface=paved highway=primary barrier=explosives access=permissive roadnote:severity=winter:critical;summer:low roadnote:note:en='Closed in winter, see http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/tiogaopen.htm for past year dates.' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
The tag as proposed leaves much to interpretations. But there are a bunch of things one can say about a road that are crisp and clear: covered_at_high_tide not_plowed_in_winter not_maintained_by_government passing_requires_reversing But at some point you break down into prose and write note='Road maintained by local 4WD club, passes over sandy inlet that floods at high tide, four inch rocks placed by club restrict access to high clearance vehicles, see website for details.' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
I don't think it is in general possible to derive the trafficability information from physical models. In cases like flooded it is possible because the model is very simple and the information needed (trafficability) can be obtained in a very simple way. The variability of possible interpretations of the underlying physics depends on the complexity of the physical model. Imagine a dirt road in the mountains of say 20 kilometers length which crosses rivers here and there. Now, in order to know if the road can be passed, for every meter of the road information about smoothnes, steepness, slipperyness or whatever would have to be tagged. Who should do that? Another problem would be how to derive the information based on the given data. Can navigation software derive trafficability reliably from the given data? This problem reminds me of a wheather forecast. It is just not possible to do it perfectly, no matter how powerful the computers in the data centers are. In contrast, if the information that the road can be passed by off road vehicles is given by local people then it is probably very reliable. It is not interpretation, it is experience. So I think it makes sense to have it both: tags based on physical models like smoothness or flooded for simple cases and tags like trafficability for the rest. Cheers, BGNO 2014/1/6 Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com: On 6 January 2014 08:16, Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de wrote: Am Montag, den 06.01.2014, 09:44 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: Isn't smoothness also based on some form of interpretation? I think that the problem lies less with the interpretation but with the scope of the interpretation. The smothness tag is very specific which limits the variability of the possible interpretations. On the other hand trafficability makes a very generic statement and as a consequence the interpretations may vary a lot. This is also the problem with the tracktype tag discussed in the other thread. It makes a very generic statement about the road and as such interpretations do vary significantly. Although I like the idea of describing the trafficability of a highway, I would not recommend introducing new tags which make such generic assessments. I think it would be better to break down the proposed trafficability onto more specific tags each with a narrow scope of interpretation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
In contrast, if the information that the road can be passed by off road vehicles is given by local people then it is probably very reliable. It is not interpretation, it is experience. If these local people are somewhat responsible, their answer could only be: It depends. As mentioned numerous times in this thread already, the '' trafficability depends a great deal on the exact specifications of your vehicle as well as other, external factors. As we can't have a tag for every vehicle (and yes, the exact height of the air intake alone can make the difference), and hopefully are also never trying to tag for every weather condition, we simply CAN'T tag trafficability. The only thing we can tag is physical properties of the road. Anectotal evidence: while driving around Iceland in a Suzuki Jimny (technically a 4x4), I was allowed to use any road. Asking locals if I would be actually able to take those roads always involved a very critical look to my car, half an our of explanation about the dangers of the road ahead, an impromtu weather forecast an a final Just try how far you can get. I would never try to tag that half hour of prose into an OSM key. Chaos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
2014/1/13 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com: In contrast, if the information that the road can be passed by off road vehicles is given by local people then it is probably very reliable. It is not interpretation, it is experience. If these local people are somewhat responsible, their answer could only be: It depends. As mentioned numerous times in this thread already, the '' trafficability depends a great deal on the exact specifications of your vehicle as well as other, external factors. As we can't have a tag for every vehicle (and yes, the exact height of the air intake alone can make the difference), and hopefully are also never trying to tag for every weather condition, we simply CAN'T tag trafficability. The only thing we can tag is physical properties of the road. Anectotal evidence: while driving around Iceland in a Suzuki Jimny (technically a 4x4), I was allowed to use any road. Asking locals if I would be actually able to take those roads always involved a very critical look to my car, half an our of explanation about the dangers of the road ahead, an impromtu weather forecast an a final Just try how far you can get. I would never try to tag that half hour of prose into an OSM key. The information which people gave me about the mentioned 20km long road was: Yes you can use the road with a regular car if it doesn't rain. I think it is practicable to tag that information into OSM. How would you tag that based on physical models? Cheers, BGNO ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com wrote: The information which people gave me about the mentioned 20km long road was: Yes you can use the road with a regular car if it doesn't rain. I think it is practicable to tag that information into OSM. How would you tag that based on physical models? I agree with you. But there is currently nothing formally adopted for such access conditions based on weather. Searching the wiki, I found these proposals: - surface=all_weather ([1]) but the values should be reworked - dry_weather_only=yes/no ([2]) - the conditional access restrictions ([3]) (but this is more legal with traffic signs) - see all the pages on specific road tagging per countries ([4]) - and how other countries handle the question you raise. For instance, Australia ([5]) They are maybe other ideas. What you need is find the best one and use it. Or if you want that the community (and the renderers styles maintainers) adopt it as well, start a vote process and explain how important it is in your country. Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface:all_weather [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dry_Weather_Road [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:conditional [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging [5] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads_.28Dirt.2C_Gravel.2C_Formed.2C_etc.29 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Anectotal evidence: while driving around Iceland in a Suzuki Jimny (technically a 4x4), I would never try to tag that half hour of prose into an OSM key. Would it not benefit the next driver to know somebody in a (stock) Jimny got through - or didn't? Even for those driving something else. The number of roads with limited get through is relatively minimal, so it's not even a space issue. Somebody used to say Tags are cheap. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
BGNO, you have been following the Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions thread started by Fernando on this same list haven't you ? I have created a summary page on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Davo We hope to reach a consensus on what seems pretty close to what you are asking. Maybe you would like to chip in ? These things always work a bit better if you have a lot of people around you David On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:29 +0100, BGNO BGNO wrote: I don't think it is in general possible to derive the trafficability information from physical models. In cases like flooded it is possible because the model is very simple and the information needed (trafficability) can be obtained in a very simple way. The variability of possible interpretations of the underlying physics depends on the complexity of the physical model. Imagine a dirt road in the mountains of say 20 kilometers length which crosses rivers here and there. Now, in order to know if the road can be passed, for every meter of the road information about smoothnes, steepness, slipperyness or whatever would have to be tagged. Who should do that? Another problem would be how to derive the information based on the given data. Can navigation software derive trafficability reliably from the given data? This problem reminds me of a wheather forecast. It is just not possible to do it perfectly, no matter how powerful the computers in the data centers are. In contrast, if the information that the road can be passed by off road vehicles is given by local people then it is probably very reliable. It is not interpretation, it is experience. So I think it makes sense to have it both: tags based on physical models like smoothness or flooded for simple cases and tags like trafficability for the rest. Cheers, BGNO 2014/1/6 Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com: On 6 January 2014 08:16, Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de wrote: Am Montag, den 06.01.2014, 09:44 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: Isn't smoothness also based on some form of interpretation? I think that the problem lies less with the interpretation but with the scope of the interpretation. The smothness tag is very specific which limits the variability of the possible interpretations. On the other hand trafficability makes a very generic statement and as a consequence the interpretations may vary a lot. This is also the problem with the tracktype tag discussed in the other thread. It makes a very generic statement about the road and as such interpretations do vary significantly. Although I like the idea of describing the trafficability of a highway, I would not recommend introducing new tags which make such generic assessments. I think it would be better to break down the proposed trafficability onto more specific tags each with a narrow scope of interpretation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Isn't smoothness also based on some form of interpretation? Cheers, BGNO 2014/1/4 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com: How about using smoothness:condition or ford:condition for that? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de wrote: Am Samstag, den 04.01.2014, 11:19 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: We don't have to stick to the term trafficability. What would be a good alternative? - usability - passable - passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term) - usable_if - ??? None of them. I think it's a bad idea to tag interpretations. You look at a road and see whether it's passable or not. But what do you see in reality? You cannot see any kind of usability, this is only an interpretation of you. You see obstacles? What obstacles? Water, sand, grave, rocks? What does this mean to all road users? You may have a well built motorway in a very good state. But for you it's impassable. Why? Well, you are taxiing an A380. Or you are going by bike or on foot. You want to cross a river? No bridge? No problem, you are driving a hovercraft. Or there is a bridge, but it is impassable because you are driving a tank and the bridge would collapse. Even if two people are going by the same class of vehicle, the way may be passable only to one of them. I know a mountain-biker who has fun if the way is a blind end in front of a river with a depth of less than 1 m, followed by 200 m of mud and 500 m of scrub before reaching the next way. Some people would describe the way up to Mount Everest or K2 as quite passable. These examples are extrem, of course. But when we were mapping for the bicycle map of Lübeck, we discussed how to tag the quality of way. It's not possible, because you don't know which exact vehicle will pass and what kind of driver or walker comes along. You can create a map for a certain group of road users and interpret the tags of the ways according to your target group. But you cannot tag it in OSM because OSM has no special target group. OSM is for every class of vehicle, driver or walker. Please tag what is to be seen on the ground. If the surface consists of mud, tag surface=mud (or any appropriate tag). If it's flooded at hight tide or monsoon season, tag flooded=high_tide, flooded=monsoon_season or something better, but don't tag hight_tide=impassable because I might be driving an amphibious vehicle and want to be routed through. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Am Montag, den 06.01.2014, 09:44 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: Isn't smoothness also based on some form of interpretation? Cheers, BGNO Yes, you are right. Until now I used smoothness as a term for the state of the surface. But the real meaning is no source, but depends on the type of vehicle. Perhaps the tag 'surface_condition=*' would be more appropriate to describe the state of the surface. A way with surface=cobblestone may have a surface_condition=excellent, nevertheless it's impassable for bicycles and time consuming for motor cars. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 6 January 2014 08:16, Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de wrote: Am Montag, den 06.01.2014, 09:44 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: Isn't smoothness also based on some form of interpretation? Cheers, BGNO I think that the problem lies less with the interpretation but with the scope of the interpretation. The smothness tag is very specific which limits the variability of the possible interpretations. On the other hand trafficability makes a very generic statement and as a consequence the interpretations may vary a lot. This is also the problem with the tracktype tag discussed in the other thread. It makes a very generic statement about the road and as such interpretations do vary significantly. Although I like the idea of describing the trafficability of a highway, I would not recommend introducing new tags which make such generic assessments. I think it would be better to break down the proposed trafficability onto more specific tags each with a narrow scope of interpretation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
2014/1/6 Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de Perhaps the tag 'surface_condition=*' would be more appropriate to describe the state of the surface. A way with surface=cobblestone may have a surface_condition=excellent, nevertheless it's impassable for bicycles and time consuming for motor cars Then what would be the implication for surface=rock, surface_condition=excellent or surface=ground in mint condition? maybe surface_condition could be useful for a very few set of surface types, especially surface=asphalt, but also there you would want to have more precise info on the state for the bad conditions (type, location and shape of damage). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Am Montag, den 06.01.2014, 12:29 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2014/1/6 Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de Perhaps the tag 'surface_condition=*' would be more appropriate to describe the state of the surface. A way with surface=cobblestone may have a surface_condition=excellent, nevertheless it's impassable for bicycles and time consuming for motor cars Then what would be the implication for surface=rock, surface_condition=excellent passable at nearly every weather condition. Possibly dangerous if weather is frosty. You can interpret the implication of every surface/surface_condition pair according to the type of vehicle you or your target group will use. or surface=ground in mint condition? passable if weather is fine, while and after rain possibly impassable or hard to pass, way is used mainly on foot, otherwise it would not be in mint condition. maybe surface_condition could be useful for a very few set of surface types, especially surface=asphalt, but also there you would want to have I think it makes sense at nearly every type of surface. more precise info on the state for the bad conditions (type, location and shape of damage). ?? Location of damage is the tagged part of the way. Shape of damage is the value of surface_condition. Type of damage can be added if appropriate (e.g. damage=potholed). But I think it makes no difference why the surface is in bad condition. If the damage consists of a hole of 10 m depth and you need mountaineering equipment to pass then the way should be closed because there is temporary none. Or the damaged part is trail, sec_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking ;-) cheers, Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
We don't have to stick to the term trafficability. What would be a good alternative? - usability - passable - passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term) - usable_if - ??? Cheers, BGNO 2014/1/3 Dave Swarthout wrote: Me either, but there it is. I wouldn't give it much chance of gathering world wide approval as a classification term but maybe I'm wrong. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: I didn't think it was a word and my old American dictionary does not have it. But my microprint edition of the Oxford English Dictionary does have it and lists it use in 1899 regarding how the streets in London were able to carry traffic. Certainly not a word that I, as an American English speaker, would have come up with. -Tod On Jan 3, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: On 03/01/14 16:06, Volker Schmidt wrote: I first reacted in the same way (is it an English word at all?). But then I looked it up on Wikipedia. There it is, since 2006(!), with correct Google translations in several other languages. Well, the English wikipedia is also used by people whose first language is American rather than English! :) The online definitions for it that I've seen seem to be mostly in American dictionaries, with this Australian one: http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soilhealth_traffic which actually talks about things from the ground's point of view, rather than the vehicle's, and so has a different meaning to the proposal. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Am Samstag, den 04.01.2014, 11:19 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: We don't have to stick to the term trafficability. What would be a good alternative? - usability - passable - passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term) - usable_if - ??? None of them. I think it's a bad idea to tag interpretations. You look at a road and see whether it's passable or not. But what do you see in reality? You cannot see any kind of usability, this is only an interpretation of you. You see obstacles? What obstacles? Water, sand, grave, rocks? What does this mean to all road users? You may have a well built motorway in a very good state. But for you it's impassable. Why? Well, you are taxiing an A380. Or you are going by bike or on foot. You want to cross a river? No bridge? No problem, you are driving a hovercraft. Or there is a bridge, but it is impassable because you are driving a tank and the bridge would collapse. Even if two people are going by the same class of vehicle, the way may be passable only to one of them. I know a mountain-biker who has fun if the way is a blind end in front of a river with a depth of less than 1 m, followed by 200 m of mud and 500 m of scrub before reaching the next way. Some people would describe the way up to Mount Everest or K2 as quite passable. These examples are extrem, of course. But when we were mapping for the bicycle map of Lübeck, we discussed how to tag the quality of way. It's not possible, because you don't know which exact vehicle will pass and what kind of driver or walker comes along. You can create a map for a certain group of road users and interpret the tags of the ways according to your target group. But you cannot tag it in OSM because OSM has no special target group. OSM is for every class of vehicle, driver or walker. Please tag what is to be seen on the ground. If the surface consists of mud, tag surface=mud (or any appropriate tag). If it's flooded at hight tide or monsoon season, tag flooded=high_tide, flooded=monsoon_season or something better, but don't tag hight_tide=impassable because I might be driving an amphibious vehicle and want to be routed through. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
How about using smoothness:condition or ford:condition for that? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de wrote: Am Samstag, den 04.01.2014, 11:19 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: We don't have to stick to the term trafficability. What would be a good alternative? - usability - passable - passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term) - usable_if - ??? None of them. I think it's a bad idea to tag interpretations. You look at a road and see whether it's passable or not. But what do you see in reality? You cannot see any kind of usability, this is only an interpretation of you. You see obstacles? What obstacles? Water, sand, grave, rocks? What does this mean to all road users? You may have a well built motorway in a very good state. But for you it's impassable. Why? Well, you are taxiing an A380. Or you are going by bike or on foot. You want to cross a river? No bridge? No problem, you are driving a hovercraft. Or there is a bridge, but it is impassable because you are driving a tank and the bridge would collapse. Even if two people are going by the same class of vehicle, the way may be passable only to one of them. I know a mountain-biker who has fun if the way is a blind end in front of a river with a depth of less than 1 m, followed by 200 m of mud and 500 m of scrub before reaching the next way. Some people would describe the way up to Mount Everest or K2 as quite passable. These examples are extrem, of course. But when we were mapping for the bicycle map of Lübeck, we discussed how to tag the quality of way. It's not possible, because you don't know which exact vehicle will pass and what kind of driver or walker comes along. You can create a map for a certain group of road users and interpret the tags of the ways according to your target group. But you cannot tag it in OSM because OSM has no special target group. OSM is for every class of vehicle, driver or walker. Please tag what is to be seen on the ground. If the surface consists of mud, tag surface=mud (or any appropriate tag). If it's flooded at hight tide or monsoon season, tag flooded=high_tide, flooded=monsoon_season or something better, but don't tag hight_tide=impassable because I might be driving an amphibious vehicle and want to be routed through. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
I understand the point you are making. A key flooded is already in use: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=flooded May be we can continue with something based on that one. Cheers, BGNO 2014/1/4 Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de: Please tag what is to be seen on the ground. If the surface consists of mud, tag surface=mud (or any appropriate tag). If it's flooded at hight tide or monsoon season, tag flooded=high_tide, flooded=monsoon_season or something better, but don't tag hight_tide=impassable because I might be driving an amphibious vehicle and want to be routed through. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
This could be a very useful tag - I'm particularly interested in unsealed and 4x4 roads/tracks, sure you have seen the recent discussion. We have been trying to massage existing tags for the purpose. The problem as I see it is that with a wealth of tags everyone chooses to use different ones. And its sort of becoming a write only memory situation, we all put the data in but as its so diverse, one one ever wants to take it out and use it. We already have - surface=, smoothness=, tracktype=, 4wd_only=. Now, please don't accuse be of tagging for rendering, boo, hiss ! But those tags are already used, in huge numbers. Now, BGNO, if trafficability is going to fly, we'll need a better view of the possible values, thoughts ? David On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 09:27 +0100, BGNO BGNO wrote: Hi, I am proposing a new key: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability Cheers BGNO ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Whilst the idea is sound, I am not sure about the name. Is it even a word? As a native English speaker its not a word that would spring to mind when I am looking for a tag. Phil (trigpoint) On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 09:27 +0100, BGNO BGNO wrote: Hi, I am proposing a new key: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability Cheers BGNO ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
2014/1/3 BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com I am proposing a new key: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability I removed your Key:trafficability page in the wiki. You shall keep the proposal form some time, at least until you get some kind of consensus or positive feedbacks. I forwarded the links you added to the current proposal page. Of course, you are free to use your tag immediately in your OSM editions. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Hi, It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours Would that be appropriate? Dan 2014/1/3 BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com Hi, I am proposing a new key: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability Cheers BGNO ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
I agree with Philip. Trafficability is not a good choice of terms. The root word, traffic, is more a descriptor of the types and/or density of vehicles using a way rather than something to rank its usability under certain conditions. Perhaps usability or passable or ??? Both passable (21) and impassable (951) are already in use as keys to describe highways. I dunno On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours Would that be appropriate? Dan 2014/1/3 BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com Hi, I am proposing a new key: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability Cheers BGNO ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 1/3/14 6:23 AM, Dan S wrote: Hi, It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours Would that be appropriate? there are different types of trafficability issues. here in upstate NY, we have two types of seasonal road. most are simply unpaved roads which have signs indicating that they are not maintained from November through the spring; they are not closed but they are also not plowed and no effort is made to repair anything during that time frame. it's travel-at-your-own-risk, and the risk is at times quite high. i've seen similar situations in Switzerland where the road to the pass simply ends in a snow bank (presumably there was a sign some where, but i didn't look for it. maybe everybody knew so they didn't put one up.) there are a fewer number of roads that are seasonal and gated; they physically close in November and the gates are not reopened until spring. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
I first reacted in the same way (is it an English word at all?). But then I looked it up on Wikipedia. There it is, since 2006(!), with correct Google translations in several other languages. On 3 January 2014 12:57, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Philip. Trafficability is not a good choice of terms. The root word, traffic, is more a descriptor of the types and/or density of vehicles using a way rather than something to rank its usability under certain conditions. Perhaps usability or passable or ??? Both passable (21) and impassable (951) are already in use as keys to describe highways. I dunno On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours Would that be appropriate? Dan 2014/1/3 BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com Hi, I am proposing a new key: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability Cheers BGNO ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Me either, but there it is. I wouldn't give it much chance of gathering world wide approval as a classification term but maybe I'm wrong. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: I didn't think it was a word and my old American dictionary does not have it. But my microprint edition of the Oxford English Dictionary does have it and lists it use in 1899 regarding how the streets in London were able to carry traffic. Certainly not a word that I, as an American English speaker, would have come up with. -Tod On Jan 3, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: On 03/01/14 16:06, Volker Schmidt wrote: I first reacted in the same way (is it an English word at all?). But then I looked it up on Wikipedia. There it is, since 2006(!), with correct Google translations in several other languages. Well, the English wikipedia is also used by people whose first language is American rather than English! :) The online definitions for it that I've seen seem to be mostly in American dictionaries, with this Australian one: http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soilhealth_traffic which actually talks about things from the ground's point of view, rather than the vehicle's, and so has a different meaning to the proposal. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
