Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Ari Torhamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pe, 2008-05-02 kello 00:28 +0200, Martin Simon kirjoitti: Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 13:37:32 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder): OK, you're totally right at this, it seems difficult to define structure of road surfaces - several proposals in the wiki exist, but none seems to have seen broad use in actual mapping - in short, I do'nt have a solution. But the need for some reliable, robust and versatile surface tagging method seems to be there, as there are ~3 proposals in the wiki to renew/extend surface tags. And I really do think its better to do this now than to re-tag specific vehicle-based tags in the future. Just an idea: what about having a separate tag for the driveability of the surface. Even when the surface material is basically the same, the driving experience with a bicycle my vary relatively much. The driveability tag could be used when driving experience is different from what one might expect based on the track type or the surface material of the track. For example, grades like -1, -2, or +1 and +2 could be used when the driving experience is worse or better than expected. The main problem with this kind of idea is it's complete subjectivity. The bike_suitability style of tag is less of a problem because there's a fairly clear reference point: ie: would you be happy cycling a road bike down this path, or would the path break it (or you)? So while subjective, people will generally be working from a similar baseline. But when you start applying -2..+2 grading, you need to calibrate everyone's expectations of what that actually means somehow. How do I know this is a +2 instead of a +1? Inevitably what this entails is writing some kind of guide where you detail all the things you should look at to determine the score. By the time you've done this you've probably come up with a reasonable surface tagging scheme you could have actually used in the first place :-) It might be something you could then apply to a map rendering to indicate how good a route is without providing the fine detail. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
pe, 2008-05-02 kello 11:07 +0100, Dave Stubbs kirjoitti: The main problem with this kind of idea is it's complete subjectivity. The bike_suitability style of tag is less of a problem because there's a fairly clear reference point: ie: would you be happy cycling a road bike down this path, or would the path break it (or you)? So while subjective, people will generally be working from a similar baseline. But when you start applying -2..+2 grading, you need to calibrate everyone's expectations of what that actually means somehow. How do I know this is a +2 instead of a +1? Inevitably what this entails is writing some kind of guide where you detail all the things you should look at to determine the score. By the time you've done this you've probably come up with a reasonable surface tagging scheme you could have actually used in the first place :-) It might be something you could then apply to a map rendering to indicate how good a route is without providing the fine detail. I see that I left out from my idea the essential part that grading would be used only in addition to tags for track type and surface material, and only in those cases, when regular tagging, while properly done, would give a wrong picture of the reality in the field. I understand the problem with subjectivity, and of course, if people come up with a regular tagging scheme that is objective and works, then there would be no need for grading. I could imagine, though, that if this objective tagging scheme fails to give people the tools they need to describe the situation in the field, the scheme would be often bent to fit the reality, and this way, in effect, being also used as a grading tool. I think bike_suitability would bring new levels of subjectivity to the mix. At least in my country some half of the bicycles in use are neither road bikes, hybrids or mountain bikes. There's no clear category these other bikes belong to, and for example their tyre diameter varies greatly - an important aspect affecting driveability. You would need either more categories (they would be fuzzy), or artificially squeeze the rest of the bikes to existing categories (fuzzy and subjective). Also, how comfortable the imagined driver would feel riding a certain type of bike on the track in question? What kind of driver - an 18 years old? 30? 50? Fit or not-so-fit? Experienced biker or not? A young, fit driver might feel OK to ride on most tracks with anything except a road bike. Some one else might feel very differently. So, bike_suitability seems to me to be even more subjective than surface grading. Categorizing tracks for bike types partly works, but is to large part arbitrary. When doing so, you can't avoid categorizing drivers (whether or not you do it knowingly), which is very subjective - even more so than grading a track surface. Anyway, it seems to me that what ever is going to be done, there's going to be subjectivity involved :-) Regards, Ari Torhamo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
At 09:35 PM 30/04/2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hello everyone, Slight dilemma with what to do about wide, off road (countryside) tracks with official cycle access, in the light of the countryside mapping suggestions I made last week on the wiki. How do cyclists in general tag these? highway=track; bicycle=yes|permissive; [surface=gravel] or highway=cycleway; surface=gravel? Want to decide whether to retag a whole load of these in the New Forest. In Sweden, I'm using the former ... they often double up as agricultural or remote residential access. And I use the latter for forest trails for when it is clearly too narrow for vehicles or they are specifically forbidden. I've also wondered about using highway=track; cycleway=track; bicycle=yes|permissive; [surface=unpaved|gravel] BTW, the gravel-type tracks here are excellent for riding - generally a compressed earth/very small grade gravel mix that forms a hard fairly smooth shell that does not mire in summer and safer in icy conditions than tarmac. Sorry, Etienne! Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
80n schrieb: On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Nick Whitelegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] highway=track; bicycle=yes|permissive; [surface=gravel] bicycle=yes and surface=gravel are an incompatible combination in my book ;) IMO, bicycle=yes means cycling is allowed, or at least, it is not forbidden. Of course, I also refuse to cycle on gravel (assuming gravel equals to Schotter or Splitt--ok, I just looked it up). Wondering whether using surface=gravel is already understood by the renderers? Thus far, I was using unpaved exclusively. -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
Karl Eichwalder wrote: Sent: 01 May 2008 7:36 AM To: 80n Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access snip Wondering whether using surface=gravel is already understood by the renderers? Thus far, I was using unpaved exclusively. I too have been using unpaved to date and will continue to do so, however I accept that in some instances I also want to state what the surface is made up of and haven't really got to grips with that for unpaved surfaces. Paved surfaces are easy enough (including those covered with chippings). These type of scenarios crop up: Farm tracks in Norfolk where dry sand fills the ruts making cycling near on impossible. Farm tracks in Cumbria where natural boulders and cobbles protrude regularly through the surface. Tracks that have had potholes filled in with railway ballast. These are just a few scenarios, none of which I find an easy way to tag, thus to date I have ignored doing so. Cheers Andy -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:39:15PM +0100, 80n wrote: bicycle=yes and surface=gravel are an incompatible combination in my book ;) There's gravel and there's gravel though - pea gravel like my grandfather had on his drive (in the New Forest!) and had to rake after cars had been over it is absolutely no good for cycling, while a self-binding gravel such as seen on http://www.pavingexpert.com/gravel05.htm is perfectly fine. I cycle a section of the Thames Path on my daily commute that comes into the latter category, and apart from the puddles tending to get larger each time it rains, it's just as good as the asphalt sections. The cycle paths in the New Forest are somewhere in between these two categories - while the Thames Path one could reasonably be labeled surface=dirt, the New Forest ones are definitely gravel, but it's well compacted and many of them will be cycled on by hundreds of people a week during the summer. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35904 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/388784 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35915 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/87018 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/381057 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Forest_Cycle_path.jpg From these photos it can be seen that there's quite a variety even within the National Park and depending on your style of bike you might want to avoid some or all of them. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
Stephen Gower wrote: Sent: 01 May 2008 10:39 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:39:15PM +0100, 80n wrote: bicycle=yes and surface=gravel are an incompatible combination in my book ;) There's gravel and there's gravel though - pea gravel like my grandfather had on his drive (in the New Forest!) and had to rake after cars had been over it is absolutely no good for cycling, while a self-binding gravel such as seen on http://www.pavingexpert.com/gravel05.htm is perfectly fine. I cycle a section of the Thames Path on my daily commute that comes into the latter category, and apart from the puddles tending to get larger each time it rains, it's just as good as the asphalt sections. The cycle paths in the New Forest are somewhere in between these two categories - while the Thames Path one could reasonably be labeled surface=dirt, the New Forest ones are definitely gravel, but it's well compacted and many of them will be cycled on by hundreds of people a week during the summer. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35904 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/388784 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35915 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/87018 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/381057 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Forest_Cycle_path.jpg From these photos it can be seen that there's quite a variety even within the National Park and depending on your style of bike you might want to avoid some or all of them. Perhaps this is the better way to think about it. I generally don't like subjective tagging, but in this instance giving an opinion about how usable a section of way is might be better. If you simplified bike types into road, hybrid and mtb then I guess you could reasonably add say suitability_road / suitability_hybrid / suitability_mtb tags, or join them together as bicycle_suitability=road|hybrid|mtb and leave out any of the values where you consider its not suitable. Cheers Andy s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
Andy Robinson \(blackadder\) wrote: Perhaps this is the better way to think about it. I generally don't like subjective tagging, but in this instance giving an opinion about how usable a section of way is might be better. If you simplified bike types into road, hybrid and mtb then I guess you could reasonably add say suitability_road / suitability_hybrid / suitability_mtb tags, or join them together as bicycle_suitability=road|hybrid|mtb and leave out any of the values where you consider its not suitable. Indeed - and you probably just need one value, given that an MTB can use anything a hybrid can, and a hybrid can use anything a road bike can. bicycle_minimum maybe. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 11:56:16 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder): Perhaps this is the better way to think about it. I generally don't like subjective tagging, but in this instance giving an opinion about how usable a section of way is might be better. If you simplified bike types into road, hybrid and mtb then I guess you could reasonably add say suitability_road / suitability_hybrid / suitability_mtb tags, or join them together as bicycle_suitability=road|hybrid|mtb and leave out any of the values where you consider its not suitable. Cheers Andy Hmm I think its way better to have a good description of the surface than introducing vehicle-type specific usability-tags. This way the client (printing/routing-app, etc) can decide which sort of surface to use. For example I have no problem using fine/medium gravel tracks with my normal bike at all, while others on this list would tag such ways as bicycle_suitable=mtb... And what about incline? is it part of the bicycle_suitable tag or not? I think its better to invest the time in better surface tagging than, rather than subjectively tagging things that are only of use for one specific group of users. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
At 01:01 PM 1/05/2008, Martin Simon wrote: Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 11:56:16 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder): Perhaps this is the better way to think about it. I generally don't like subjective tagging, but in this instance giving an opinion about how usable a section of way is might be better. If you simplified bike types into road, hybrid and mtb then I guess you could reasonably add say suitability_road / suitability_hybrid / suitability_mtb tags, or join them together as bicycle_suitability=road|hybrid|mtb and leave out any of the values where you consider its not suitable. Cheers Andy Hmm I think its way better to have a good description of the surface than introducing vehicle-type specific usability-tags. This way the client (printing/routing-app, etc) can decide which sort of surface to use. For example I have no problem using fine/medium gravel tracks with my normal bike at all, while others on this list would tag such ways as bicycle_suitable=mtb... And what about incline? is it part of the bicycle_suitable tag or not? I think its better to invest the time in better surface tagging than, rather than subjectively tagging things that are only of use for one specific group of users. I get around subjective tagging / specific groups by doing description:bicycle=Ridable with a road bike but short stretches with tree roots ... looking ahead to the day when pop-ups become all the rage. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 13:37:32 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder): It was because of the difficulty of defining unpaved surfaces that this thread branched off. If you can come up with a method for tagging the make-up of natural surfaces then great, but its not easy in my view or I'd be using them already. Cheers Andy OK, you're totally right at this, it seems difficult to define structure of road surfaces - several proposals in the wiki exist, but none seems to have seen broad use in actual mapping - in short, I do'nt have a solution. But the need for some reliable, robust and versatile surface tagging method seems to be there, as there are ~3 proposals in the wiki to renew/extend surface tags. And I really do think its better to do this now than to re-tag specific vehicle-based tags in the future. -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
pe, 2008-05-02 kello 00:28 +0200, Martin Simon kirjoitti: Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 13:37:32 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder): OK, you're totally right at this, it seems difficult to define structure of road surfaces - several proposals in the wiki exist, but none seems to have seen broad use in actual mapping - in short, I do'nt have a solution. But the need for some reliable, robust and versatile surface tagging method seems to be there, as there are ~3 proposals in the wiki to renew/extend surface tags. And I really do think its better to do this now than to re-tag specific vehicle-based tags in the future. Just an idea: what about having a separate tag for the driveability of the surface. Even when the surface material is basically the same, the driving experience with a bicycle my vary relatively much. The driveability tag could be used when driving experience is different from what one might expect based on the track type or the surface material of the track. For example, grades like -1, -2, or +1 and +2 could be used when the driving experience is worse or better than expected. This is indeed just an idea - I'm not making a more detailed suggestion, because I have very little experience with tagging (or anything else regarding OpenStreetMap :-) Cheers, Ari Torhamo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
Hello everyone, Slight dilemma with what to do about wide, off road (countryside) tracks with official cycle access, in the light of the countryside mapping suggestions I made last week on the wiki. How do cyclists in general tag these? highway=track; bicycle=yes|permissive; [surface=gravel] or highway=cycleway; surface=gravel? Want to decide whether to retag a whole load of these in the New Forest. Thanks, Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Nick Whitelegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone, Slight dilemma with what to do about wide, off road (countryside) tracks with official cycle access, in the light of the countryside mapping suggestions I made last week on the wiki. How do cyclists in general tag these? highway=track; bicycle=yes|permissive; [surface=gravel] bicycle=yes and surface=gravel are an incompatible combination in my book ;) or highway=cycleway; surface=gravel? Want to decide whether to retag a whole load of these in the New Forest. Thanks, Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
