Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
I want to go to that mapping party. Steve stevecoast.com On Jan 21, 2011, at 17:59, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@thenilgiris.com wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Unless they were expatriates in a third-world country? please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map by snake charming while riding on elephant back? -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote:
Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call
something that wasn't surfaced a road.
Appologies if I'm repeating something that's already been said – I've only just
joined the list, but what's inappropriate about highway=track, surface={dirt |
gravel | ...} for this?
Tom Davie___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 12.02.2011 18:54, SteveC wrote: I want to go to that mapping party. On Jan 21, 2011, at 17:59, Kenneth Gonsalveslaw...@thenilgiris.com wrote: please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map by snake charming while riding on elephant back? Feel free to join on 26th March. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Current_events If you insist on doing the mapping from elephant back, feel free to do so. Lampang has a lot of white area on the map left for you to map. I can organize you an elephant. Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
If you insist on doing the mapping from elephant back, feel free to do so. Lampang has a lot of white area on the map left for you to map. I can organize you an elephant. That sounds like a lot of fun! Although I don't think since it'll very efficient, since somebody will have to walk beside it, wouldn't it? I do map on horseback though and that's a lot of fun too. Cheers, Jo, who'll probably won't be able to make it to Chiang Mai, unfortunately ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 12.02.2011 20:21, Jo wrote: That sounds like a lot of fun! Although I don't think since it'll very efficient, since somebody will have to walk beside it, wouldn't it? I do map on horseback though and that's a lot of fun too. I guess they won't let you alone with the Elephant without proper training. This is how it might look like: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5383747681_9f54d15256_o.jpg Others can still help by tracing from Bing. The Major Highways are there, a lot of other things missing. Be careful, Bing images are often misaligned. Check with GPS tracks. Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Unless they were expatriates in a third-world country? please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map by snake charming while riding on elephant back? -- I considered that remark yesterday while driving at 80kmh on a well made unsurfaced road in what is probably a second-world country, although the term has never been commonly used. My rough method of deciding track or road would be: A track is made by feet or wheels and is not 'improved'. A road will have had work done on it to 'improve' the surface, for example with a grader. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Completely off-topic, but 'second world' is really a political term fallen into disuse following the end of the Cold War, and referred to the Communist bloc of nations, rather than what I guess you mean might be a degree of economic development. PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UK Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? -Original Message- From: ed...@billiau.net [mailto:ed...@billiau.net] Sent: 22 January 2011 20:45 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Unless they were expatriates in a third-world country? please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map by snake charming while riding on elephant back? -- I considered that remark yesterday while driving at 80kmh on a well made unsurfaced road in what is probably a second-world country, although the term has never been commonly used. My rough method of deciding track or road would be: A track is made by feet or wheels and is not 'improved'. A road will have had work done on it to 'improve' the surface, for example with a grader. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 10/01/2011 19:47, Tom Hughes wrote: On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Unless they were expatriates in a third-world country? -- Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Unless they were expatriates in a third-world country? please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map by snake charming while riding on elephant back? -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix 200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the cop-out of highway=road) if someone creates a rendering to highlight where they are. It originated here: I certainly remember using it circa 2006 and continued using it through 2007, for both: * residential roads with an uneven, gravelly surface; * tracks. The former I would now tag as highway=residential; surface=unpaved and the latter, highway=track. I try to change them if I'm editing in an area with one I created, if I remember to do so. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
2011/1/12 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:59 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote You seem to keep getting mixed up between the UK understanding of the word 'road' and the OSM context of the meaning of highway=road. As you can read (quoted) in my original email, highway=road means unknown classification. +1 As I said, highway=road is not defined as unknown classification, it is defined as a road of unknown classification. IMHO that's just a bad definition, because if you don't know the way, how could you know that it is a road (see also the aussie example of cycleway vs. unpaved road)? And which should be the classification of an unknown path? Btw., Wikipedia (yes, it's not the bible) states that road can be almost everything: A road is a thoroughfare, route, or way between two places, which typically has been improved to allow travel by some conveyance, [1] and A thoroughfare may refer to a public road, highway, path or trail or a route on water from one place to another for use by a variety of general traffic. On land a thoroughfare may refer to anything from a simple trail through to limited access highway with grade separated junctions; [2] And the differing notions of the meaning of road don't seem to be restricted to the UK. +1, here I agree. In Germany it is similar. What exactly does highway mean in spoken language? Does highway=path make any sense? Tags are not the same as their verbal meaning. The wiki is confusing, though. It puts highway=residential, highway=track, highway=service, and highway=pedestrian under the subcategory of roads, but it puts highway=cycleway, highway=footway, and highway=bridleway under the subcategory of paths. Which I thought was distinguishing between motor vehicle traffic allowed and motor vehicle traffic not allowed. IMHO that's perfectly OK, (note that I don't confirm road= highway=road) But then highway=pedestrian would be an exception. It is a pedestrianized road = a road Well, according to my understanding of the wiki, a cycleway (like a bridleway and a footway) is a path and not a road. If we want to keep that distinction, maybe there should be a highway=unknown tag, for cases where we don't know if it's a path or a road. I think that is not necessary. I am in favor of changing what the wiki states about highway=road The fact is, whether we like it or not, people will mass-change tags. Lets at least try to encourage them to not break things too badly when they do so. I disagree. me too. I we really find that many people are mass-changing tags, and the actions are disputed, we will probably take technical means to avoid it. cheers, Martin [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoroughfare ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:18 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/1/12 Anthony o...@inbox.org: As I said, highway=road is not defined as unknown classification, it is defined as a road of unknown classification. IMHO that's just a bad definition, because if you don't know the way, how could you know that it is a road (see also the aussie example of cycleway vs. unpaved road)? I agree it's a bad definition (I think my last post explained that in detail), but you certainly could see a road, but not know what class of road it is. And which should be the classification of an unknown path? highway=path What exactly does highway mean in spoken language? Does highway=path make any sense? Tags are not the same as their verbal meaning. No, not necessarily, which is why I asked what the OSM definition of highway=road is. And I'm not quite sure what your answer is. Are you saying it's a generic path where people travel, such that all highway=* ways (except for the dumb ones like highway=proposed) are roads? If so, I think that's fine, but the wiki fairly clearly contradicts that, referring to a subdivision between roads and paths. And highway=unknown or even highway=highway would be less confusing. (And yes, highway itself is a dumb choice of mnemonic, but that one is far too ingrained to be fixed.) The wiki is confusing, though. It puts highway=residential, highway=track, highway=service, and highway=pedestrian under the subcategory of roads, but it puts highway=cycleway, highway=footway, and highway=bridleway under the subcategory of paths. Which I thought was distinguishing between motor vehicle traffic allowed and motor vehicle traffic not allowed. IMHO that's perfectly OK, (note that I don't confirm road= highway=road) The wiki clearly says that highway=road is a tag for a road, though. And even besides that, it's not perfectly okay, because it's confusing as hell. The wiki presents highway=* broken down into two categories, roads and paths. It presents highway=road as a generic road, and highway=path as a generic path, and then other various highway=* values as being more specific roads or paths. Which would make perfect sense, except for the fact that a bunch of people are now saying that this isn't actually how we're supposed to be tagging things. But then highway=pedestrian would be an exception. It is a pedestrianized road = a road And a cycleway can be a road where bicycles are allowed but motor vehicles aren't. So why isn't cycleway under roads as well? I've asked this before, and I don't think you've answered it (though others have). What is a road? If it's just a paved path where people travel, then a cycleway is a road. If it is an official (i.e. marked as a separate parcel, or given a name for addressing purposes) path where people travel, then a track isn't a road. If you want to separate highway=* into roads and paths, then what is the distinction? If not, then the subcategories shouldn't be in the wiki. Well, according to my understanding of the wiki, a cycleway (like a bridleway and a footway) is a path and not a road. If we want to keep that distinction, maybe there should be a highway=unknown tag, for cases where we don't know if it's a path or a road. I think that is not necessary. I am in favor of changing what the wiki states about highway=road Me too, although I can't really figure out what it is supposed to say. I suspect a path where motor vehicles travel is the about closest to the de facto definition, as I suspect that most roads where motor vehicles are allowed to travel are not tagged with motor_vehicle=yes/permissive (and, in fact, I have in the past tagged roads with highway=road and thought that motor_vehicle=yes/permissive was implied). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 01/12/2011 11:39 AM, Anthony wrote: Which I suppose is one of my main questions. If a way is tagged with highway=road, and nothing else, should a router route motor vehicle traffic down it? I would think the answer is yes, which means that paths which are not meant for motor vehicle traffic shouldn't be tagged with highway=road. Well, nothing should end up tagged as highway=road, it’s an interim tag only. It means exactly “we don’t know what this is, except it looks like a road from the aerial photos”: It could be private or pedestrian-only, there could be a gate or one-way spike strips, or bollards (rising or otherwise), or any number of other things which make it unsuitable for routing. So at best it could be routed with strong “use at your own risk” warnings. But in general it’s probably best if routers do not send people down them. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Am 12.01.2011 20:36, schrieb Alex Mauer: So at best it could be routed with strong “use at your own risk” warnings. But in general it’s probably best if routers do not send people down them. It would be great to have an OSM-Navi giving the user the choice: - fastest - shortest - most helpful: knowing the risk of being misleaded you as the user know that that's possible; but I'll ask you for missing data at some points (e.g. to re-classify a street tagged as highway=road). You agree to stop at these places at a save area to answer the questions (could be: oneway, oneway opposite, optional maxspeed, maxweight, ..) regards Peter P.S.: I know, not everything can be generated as a clear to answer question; some answers could go to a note only; but I as a mapper sometimes ask people I know of for their street details after drawing them from aerials. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 01/12/2011 11:39 AM, Anthony wrote: Which I suppose is one of my main questions. If a way is tagged with highway=road, and nothing else, should a router route motor vehicle traffic down it? I would think the answer is yes, which means that paths which are not meant for motor vehicle traffic shouldn't be tagged with highway=road. Well, nothing should end up tagged as highway=road, it’s an interim tag only. It means exactly “we don’t know what this is, except it looks like a road from the aerial photos”: It could be private or pedestrian-only, there could be a gate or one-way spike strips, or bollards (rising or otherwise), or any number of other things which make it unsuitable for routing. Ah. I see. I thought it was for roads of unknown classification. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Serious about changing highway=unsurfaced? In response to Richard's suggestion I have rendered where they occur in England: http://steve8.dev.openstreetmap.org/unsurfacedENG.png I am currently rendering a tile set (down to about z10) to help identify exact locations. These will be uploaded to a server and URL circulated shortly. Richard has put his actions where his keyboard is and agreed to provide a Potlatch instance linked to it so edits can be done from it. If this is helpful to folk then the process to can be repeated for Wales and Scotland (I am using geofabrik country files). NB: I am afraid I cannot render and host tiles for any other parts of the world Cheers STEVE -Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst Sent: 10 January 2011 18:53 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced Alex Mauer wrote: Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on the wiki[1] clearly shows a road http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg I think if you described that as a road in the UK you'd have the Trades Descriptions people onto you pretty sharpish. Maybe this explains why our newspapers get so over-excited when satnavs direct us down bumpy, inhospitable things and claim they're roads. That would be described only as a track here. But it doesn't matter. There is simply no need to fiddle in this way. The situation is just as it was last time Gorm tried to enforce his own idea of tag tidiness (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-November/054639.html); again, this change achieves nothing and is at risk of breaking plenty, including every mkgmap .img based on its default styles. A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix 200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the cop-out of highway=road) if someone creates a rendering to highlight where they are. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5908118.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:47 +, Tom Hughes wrote: On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia. Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions. [1]http://www.exploroz.com/Forum/Topic/68546/Old_Eyre_Highway.aspx [2]http://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/83309/397431/t/3801989-Outback-Highway-0.jpg David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
David Murn wrote: Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia. Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions. Just goes to show the folly of making global tag changes in areas you don't know - a UK mapper replacing highway=unsurfaced according to his/her own understanding would foul up Australia just as an Australian mapper would foul up the UK. FWIW I've now replaced several occurrences of highway=unsurfaced in the UK (thanks to Steve's very timely rendering), starting in areas I know personally (West Oxfordshire and Rutland), and not a single one would be described as a road in the UK. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5910447.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 11/01/11 11:05, David Murn wrote: On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:47 +, Tom Hughes wrote: On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia. Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions. Sure, but if you read you will notice that I was specifically answering a question about what that would be called in the UK, not what it would be called in Australia. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 11/01/11 11:05, David Murn wrote: On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:47 +, Tom Hughes wrote: On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia. Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions. Sure, but if you read you will notice that I was specifically answering a question about what that would be called in the UK, not what it would be called in Australia. The more important question is what the tag means. Or is highway=road a tag which has a different definition in every state? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 10/01/2011 18:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix 200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the cop-out of highway=road) if someone creates a rendering to highlight where they are. Keepright highlights things tagged as highway=unsurfaced (and other 'deprecated' tags). http://keepright.ipax.at/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
FWIW I've now replaced several occurrences of highway=unsurfaced in the UK (thanks to Steve's very timely rendering), starting in areas I know personally (West Oxfordshire and Rutland), and not a single one would be described as a road in the UK. I added some several years ago. I've changed some to highway=*, surface=unpaved where I've mapped that way again since - but I seem to remember almost all of them were unadopted (i.e. private, not maintained by the council) residential roads where tarmac had never been layed. I'll see if I can get around to changing these near me. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 10:13 -0500, Anthony wrote: Sure, but if you read you will notice that I was specifically answering a question about what that would be called in the UK, not what it would be called in Australia. The more important question is what the tag means. Or is highway=road a tag which has a different definition in every state? Well, I dunno/care about what the definition is in every state, but the definition of highway=road in the OSM wiki (since I believe we're all talking about OSM here, and not some other localised schema): From highway=road: A road of unknown classification. This is intended as a temporary tag to mark a road until it has been properly surveyed. Once it has been surveyed, the classification should be updated to the appropriate value. So, while 'road' may mean a tarred bit of bitumen in the UK, and it means something passable by a vehicle in Australia, in the OSM context it means an unknown classification, temporarily tagged until the required re-survey is complete. Now, maybe Im off the mark here, but it sounds like that is *EXACTLY* the outcome we want when mass changing tags, to use a temporary tag which by definition means more information is needed. So, while its all well and good that different countries have different meanings of the word 'road', in OSM there is only one meaning, and it seems to be exactly what we're trying to achieve in this situation. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Hi, David Murn wrote: Now, maybe Im off the mark here, but it sounds like that is *EXACTLY* the outcome we want when mass changing tags, We are not going to mass-change tags. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 12 January 2011 08:01, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, David Murn wrote: Now, maybe Im off the mark here, but it sounds like that is *EXACTLY* the outcome we want when mass changing tags, We are not going to mass-change tags. If the reason is good enough, eg the flow control thread, then why not? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 23:01 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, David Murn wrote: Now, maybe Im off the mark here, but it sounds like that is *EXACTLY* the outcome we want when mass changing tags, We are not going to mass-change tags. 'we' being who? Are you speaking on behalf of a specific group, or are you speaking on behalf of the 12,000 individual mappers? Also, is this a new policy, or is it just an old policy that on-one knows about or follows? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
2011/1/11 Anthony o...@inbox.org: The more important question is what the tag means. Or is highway=road a tag which has a different definition in every state? highway=road is a way that seemed to be OK for travelling in an aerial photo, it can be all kinds of OSM-highways. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:54 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Well, I dunno/care about what the definition is in every state, but the definition of highway=road in the OSM wiki (since I believe we're all talking about OSM here, and not some other localised schema): From highway=road: A road of unknown classification. This is intended as a temporary tag to mark a road until it has been properly surveyed. Once it has been surveyed, the classification should be updated to the appropriate value. So, while 'road' may mean a tarred bit of bitumen in the UK, and it means something passable by a vehicle in Australia, in the OSM context it means an unknown classification, temporarily tagged until the required re-survey is complete. It means a *road* of unknown classification. Apparently to some people that word road means something more than just a path where people drive motor vehicles, and that in order to be a road the path has to have some sort of official standing. Of course, the definition for highway=track says Roads for agricultural use, gravel roads in the forest etc. So it uses that same word road, which leads me to believe that the word road as used in OSM really does mean nothing more than a path where people drive motor vehicles. But I'm open to other definitions, especially if they fit in with the current de facto tagging. Now, maybe Im off the mark here, but it sounds like that is *EXACTLY* the outcome we want when mass changing tags, to use a temporary tag which by definition means more information is needed. I see no point in mass changing tags. At best it provides equal information. At worst it provides less information. And according to some it provides wrong information. If there were some benefit that might be derived from it, I might reconsider. But I see no benefit, and only potential harm. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:39 -0500, Anthony wrote: So, while 'road' may mean a tarred bit of bitumen in the UK, and it means something passable by a vehicle in Australia, in the OSM context it means an unknown classification, temporarily tagged until the required re-survey is complete. It means a *road* of unknown classification. Apparently to some people that word road means something more than just a path where people drive motor vehicles, and that in order to be a road the path has to have some sort of official standing. You seem to keep getting mixed up between the UK understanding of the word 'road' and the OSM context of the meaning of highway=road. As you can read (quoted) in my original email, highway=road means unknown classification. In Australia for example, there are instances where bicycle paths can be 8' wide asphalt with a clearly defined line painted down the middle, while a nearby vehicle access road might be barely 6' wide and made of dirt. From aerial imagery, both of these should be tagged as highway=road since the type of way is unknown. If youre going to re-tag unknown road types, this seems the logical choice. I see no point in mass changing tags. At best it provides equal information. At worst it provides less information. And according to some it provides wrong information. The fact is, whether we like it or not, people will mass-change tags. Lets at least try to encourage them to not break things too badly when they do so. If there were some benefit that might be derived from it, I might reconsider. But I see no benefit, and only potential harm. Personally, I agree that without a good reason, the tags shouldnt be changed, but Ive been around OSM long enough to know that just because common-sense prevails among some on the mailing list, that doesnt transfer to every user having common-sense in the OSM world. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:59 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:39 -0500, Anthony wrote: So, while 'road' may mean a tarred bit of bitumen in the UK, and it means something passable by a vehicle in Australia, in the OSM context it means an unknown classification, temporarily tagged until the required re-survey is complete. It means a *road* of unknown classification. Apparently to some people that word road means something more than just a path where people drive motor vehicles, and that in order to be a road the path has to have some sort of official standing. You seem to keep getting mixed up between the UK understanding of the word 'road' and the OSM context of the meaning of highway=road. As you can read (quoted) in my original email, highway=road means unknown classification. As I said, highway=road is not defined as unknown classification, it is defined as a road of unknown classification. And the differing notions of the meaning of road don't seem to be restricted to the UK. For instance, see the response by Greg Troxel, who I am assuming lives in Massachusetts. The wiki is confusing, though. It puts highway=residential, highway=track, highway=service, and highway=pedestrian under the subcategory of roads, but it puts highway=cycleway, highway=footway, and highway=bridleway under the subcategory of paths. Which I thought was distinguishing between motor vehicle traffic allowed and motor vehicle traffic not allowed. But then highway=pedestrian would be an exception. In Australia for example, there are instances where bicycle paths can be 8' wide asphalt with a clearly defined line painted down the middle, while a nearby vehicle access road might be barely 6' wide and made of dirt. From aerial imagery, both of these should be tagged as highway=road since the type of way is unknown. Well, according to my understanding of the wiki, a cycleway (like a bridleway and a footway) is a path and not a road. If we want to keep that distinction, maybe there should be a highway=unknown tag, for cases where we don't know if it's a path or a road. If youre going to re-tag unknown road types, this seems the logical choice. Well, I'm not going to re-tag unknown road types. I see no point in mass changing tags. At best it provides equal information. At worst it provides less information. And according to some it provides wrong information. The fact is, whether we like it or not, people will mass-change tags. Lets at least try to encourage them to not break things too badly when they do so. I disagree. I would encourage anyone reading this who is thinking about mass-changing highway=unsurfaced to not do so, or at the very least to present a good reason for doing so here on this list and discuss that reasoning first. No matter what highway=unsurfaced is mass-changed to, things aren't broken too badly, as it can easily be mass-reverted. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 09/01/2011 20:17, Dave F. wrote: On 09/01/2011 16:28, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Hi Today there is 5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced... Whilst the surface condition should be a sub-tag (surface=*), you unfortunately don't know what the actual road classification is, so it's inadvisable to do a mass change. Does anyone know if there's a way to mass email the persons who tagged them that way ask them to check clarify? I'm not sure that a mass email would be the complete answer, since presumably there would then be a conversation with at least some of the original mappers. Far better to determine the active mappers with most affected ways and start at the top asking them if they can add the extra detail. In a case like this, where something is imperfectly mapped, and there isn't an easy way to infer the extra detail, I really don't see the benefit of retagging. Alternatively, perhaps Gorm could maybe create a page below his user page in the wiki divided the XAPI extra results that you've done by continent and country / state? That way people who've recently been on one of the problem roads might also be able to help. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 01/09/2011 12:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: No. highway=unsurfaced could be what's now commonly tagged as highway=track, or highway=unclassified, or highway=bridleway. Only one of those three is a road. Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns out to be a bridleway, because highway=road is basically “we don’t know what it is, only that there’s something there; this needs to be (re-)surveyed”. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Alex Mauer wrote: Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV. It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns out to be a bridleway, because highway=road is basically “we don’t know what it is, only that there’s something there; this needs to be (re-)surveyed”. In the UK there is absolutely no need to use highway=road. We have high-resolution imagery (Bing) and reliable road classification data (Ordnance Survey) for the whole of the country. You can reliably infer any road type from these two sources, remembering too that OSM is an iterative project and that a best guess with a fixme can always be improved upon. Obviously I can't speak for (and don't really care about) your part of the world, but I would consider a mass change of highway=unsurfaced to highway=road in the UK as vandalism, and would take steps to revert it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5907804.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. highway=track doesn't imply a road round here Is there some well accepted definition of road that you're using to make that statement? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 01/10/2011 11:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV. Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on the wiki[1] clearly shows a road, and one which is pretty typical of a highway=track around here (green grassy field aside, given that it’s winter here) Obviously I can't speak for (and don't really care about) your part of the world, but I would consider a mass change of highway=unsurfaced to highway=road in the UK as vandalism, and would take steps to revert it. That seems quite extreme: while it might be better to do a best-guess+fixme, it’s not clearly “wrong” to change from one form of unknown road classification, to another form of unknown road classification. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Alex Mauer wrote: Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on the wiki[1] clearly shows a road http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg I think if you described that as a road in the UK you'd have the Trades Descriptions people onto you pretty sharpish. Maybe this explains why our newspapers get so over-excited when satnavs direct us down bumpy, inhospitable things and claim they're roads. That would be described only as a track here. But it doesn't matter. There is simply no need to fiddle in this way. The situation is just as it was last time Gorm tried to enforce his own idea of tag tidiness (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-November/054639.html); again, this change achieves nothing and is at risk of breaking plenty, including every mkgmap .img based on its default styles. A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix 200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the cop-out of highway=road) if someone creates a rendering to highlight where they are. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5908118.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced From :mailto:rich...@systemed.net Date :Mon Jan 10 12:52:47 America/Chicago 2011 Alex Mauer wrote: Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on the wiki[1] clearly shows a road http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg I think if you described that as a road in the UK you'd have the Trades Descriptions people onto you pretty sharpish. Maybe this explains why our newspapers get so over-excited when satnavs direct us down bumpy, inhospitable things and claim they're roads. That would be described only as a track here. But it doesn't matter. There is simply no need to fiddle in this way. The situation is just as it was last time Gorm tried to enforce his own idea of tag tidiness (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-November/054639.html); again, this change achieves nothing and is at risk of breaking plenty, including every mkgmap .img based on its default styles. A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix 200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the cop-out of highway=road) if someone creates a rendering to highlight where they are. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5908118.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call something that wasn't surfaced a road. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. highway=track doesn't imply a road round here Is there some well accepted definition of road that you're using to make that statement? Yes, a public or private way. Something that would be shown in a zoning map as being a parcel. Someting the public has a reasoable expectation of driving on. As opposed to track which is a way to drive on a piece of property that is not a parcel. In Mass this is a legal distinction. IIRC drunk driving, speeding, etc. on a public or private way is an offense, but your own driveway is not such a way. As in if an airport owner lets you drive to 100 on the runway that's not speeding. But if it's a road then it is, even if a private way. I think this is pretty clearly understood even if the boundary is slightly hazy. pgpKODeMn8EyI.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Hi Today there is 5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced (Taginfohttp://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/highway=unsurfaced). They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciatedhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_featuresalmost three years ago. I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking highway=road + surface=unpaved. Do you agree that we should replace highway=unsurfaced? If not, please write a few words why you don't think we should. Is there a better alternative than highway=road? I have seen 'uncurfaced' described as unclassified and track, but they both somewhat indicate more detail tan just 'road' does. Is there a better alternative than surface=unpaved? Maybe we could use surfaced=unsurfaced to, for what its worth, conserve the old highway value? What should be done if there is a surface tag already? Overwrite? Or move to surface_old (or something)? I would use XAPI and JOSM on about a continent at a time. Perhaps a bot is better, but haven't looked into how that is done. If anyone else willing to do it has a better tool to execute the edit, speak up. best regards -gormur ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
I would think the intent of original taggers is that highway=unsurfaced was that they were real roads that aren't paved vs tracks. So I'd map highway=unsurfaced to highway=unclassified surface=unpaved note=review:was-highway-unsurfaced or something like that. Have you looked at a random 100 of the 5500 and determined what they tend to be, and tried to contact the original taggers? I think you should definitely do that before munging tags. pgpW3kqmwhDJ3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: highway=unclassified surface=unpaved note=review:was-highway-unsurfaced unclassified + surface is probably correct for most of the cases. But it sounds more cautious to replace it by highway=road + note=deprecates highway=unsurfaced; re-survey please. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
2011/1/9 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: highway=unclassified surface=unpaved note=review:was-highway-unsurfaced unclassified + surface is probably correct for most of the cases. But it sounds more cautious to replace it by highway=road + note=deprecates highway=unsurfaced; re-survey please. +1, I agree. I don't think you can asume that they are all unclassified, roads without paving tend to be tracks in most locations I have mapped. You cannot even be sure it is not a highway=path, so road would be the best intermediate classification IMHO. I wouldn't attach the note either (though it might not harm) as road already is asking for re-survey. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciatedhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features almost three years ago. Depreciated means reduced in value. You mean deprecated, but you can only deprecate a feature from the wiki docs, not from the database. I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking highway=road + surface=unpaved. No. highway=unsurfaced could be what's now commonly tagged as highway=track, or highway=unclassified, or highway=bridleway. Only one of those three is a road. You should create a rendering which highlights highway=unsurfaced, so that people will find them and modernise the tagging _appropriately_ for that specific case. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5904843.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 09/01/11 16:28, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Hi Today there is 5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced (Taginfo http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/highway=unsurfaced). They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciated http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features almost three years ago. I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking highway=road + surface=unpaved. Do you agree that we should replace highway=unsurfaced? If not, please write a few words why you don't think we should. Is there a better alternative than highway=road? I have seen 'uncurfaced' described as unclassified and track, but they both somewhat indicate more detail tan just 'road' does. Is there a better alternative than surface=unpaved? Maybe we could use surfaced=unsurfaced to, for what its worth, conserve the old highway value? What should be done if there is a surface tag already? Overwrite? Or move to surface_old (or something)? I would use XAPI and JOSM on about a continent at a time. Perhaps a bot is better, but haven't looked into how that is done. If anyone else willing to do it has a better tool to execute the edit, speak up. best regards -gormur Please don't make a global change to this either by hand or with a bot, you risk making 5499 mistakes which you won't find because you won't visit the sites to correct it, yet it will look superficially correct. Find a way to highlight these and let *local* mappers investigate and change these to appropriate tags. It will take longer but the end results will be much better. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
In a prosperous country, the only roads likely to be unsurfaced are tracks, unclassified, or bridleways. Other roads are likely to have at least a gravel surface. However, in much of the Third World, the majority of the roads are likely to be unsurfaced, even if they are of major importance to the region. So, no one set of assumptions will fit the entire world. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced From :mailto:rich...@systemed.net Date :Sun Jan 09 12:01:11 America/Chicago 2011 Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciatedhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features almost three years ago. Depreciated means reduced in value. You mean deprecated, but you can only deprecate a feature from the wiki docs, not from the database. I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking highway=road + surface=unpaved. No. highway=unsurfaced could be what's now commonly tagged as highway=track, or highway=unclassified, or highway=bridleway. Only one of those three is a road. You should create a rendering which highlights highway=unsurfaced, so that people will find them and modernise the tagging _appropriately_ for that specific case. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5904843.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciated http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features almost three years ago. I am mapping Aruba, most unpaved roads there are currently set to highway=track, and there is a lot of them. I will check Aruba for deprecated features and correct them there. Big cheers for taginfo, it is really an excelent website. The only thing I am missing is a filter by bounding box, but If I find time I will generate an amateurs mini-taginfo to monitor my own regions of interest. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:28:14 +0100 Gorm E. Johnsen osml...@gorm.cc wrote: I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking highway=road + surface=unpaved. Do you agree that we should replace highway=unsurfaced? If not, please write a few words why you don't think we should. Please don't perform any of these of these experiments on the continent called Australia without a discussion on the talk-au list ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On 09/01/2011 16:28, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Hi Today there is 5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced... Whilst the surface condition should be a sub-tag (surface=*), you unfortunately don't know what the actual road classification is, so it's inadvisable to do a mass change. Does anyone know if there's a way to mass email the persons who tagged them that way ask them to check clarify? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Gorm E. Johnsen osml...@gorm.cc wrote: Today there is 5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced (Taginfo). They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciated almost three years ago. I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking The sense I get from the discussion below is you should do this only on a country-by-country basis. Ask the US mappers what to replace it with for the US. Then for the UK...Australia...etc. If you do a mass change, I think highway=road, surface=unsurfaced would be the most conservative approach. (But also of little value.) Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
