Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Ian Bennett]

David,
I create the way (path, track, etc), ensuring there is a node where the 
gate 
is.
After I've tagged the way, I then tag the node (where the gate is) as 
barrier=gate; as Mike has suggested.

Ian

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:36:44 David Findlay wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:28:27 PM Ian Bennett wrote:
> > Crikey I hope not!! I say this because I am doing something similar.
> > In so far as labelling, see
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
> > Wealth of info here :-)
>
> Thanks, forgot about that page. One thing I didn't find, how do I add a
> gate to a route? Several of these places have gates or fences that you can
> either go through or over. Thanks,
>
> David
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Finding missing streetnames

[Grant Slater]

On 6 January 2012 04:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> Quoting Chris Barham :
>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 13:47, David Findlay
>>  wrote:
>>>
>> Cloudmade has a noname map style:
>>
>> http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=-26.758333&lng=152.854242&zoom=14&styleId=3&opened_tab=0
>
>
> This used to be also available from the main OSM maps, but I've just noticed
> it has disappeared - anyone know why?
>

Yes, the Cloudmade noname layer was (is?) upto a few months behind
current OSM data and at times suffered from poor performance. Poor
reflection of OSM.
2 new layers were added in its place; OCM Transport Layer (pushing
features in rendering, fairly unique style, current) and MapQuest Open
(Regional styles, looks good, current)

Nonames layer has also been replaced by better tech as per thread.
(eg: OSM Inspector)

Regards
 Grant

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Finding missing streetnames

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Chris Barham :


On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 13:47, David Findlay
 wrote:
Is there a way to print out a map that shows all the streets   
missing names in

red or something?


Cloudmade has a noname map style:
http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=-26.758333&lng=152.854242&zoom=14&styleId=3&opened_tab=0


This used to be also available from the main OSM maps, but I've just  
noticed it has disappeared - anyone know why?



OSMAustralia creates a Garmin compatible img file with NoName streets
emphasised:
http://osmaustralia.org/garminnoname.php


The garmin noname map files are currently not functioning - current  
file sizes are 22 bytes!


Mark P.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Finding missing streetnames

[Chris Barham]

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 13:47, David Findlay
 wrote:
> Is there a way to print out a map that shows all the streets missing names in
> red or something? I'd like to clean up the remaining missing ones in my area,
> but it's hard to find them all just browsing the map. Thanks,

Cloudmade has a noname map style:
http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=-26.758333&lng=152.854242&zoom=14&styleId=3&opened_tab=0

they also produce a Garmin compatible  img "err" error edition file:
http://support.cloudmade.com/faq/downloads

OSMAustralia creates a Garmin compatible img file with NoName streets
emphasised:
http://osmaustralia.org/garminnoname.php

Cheers,
Chris

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Finding missing streetnames

[Peter Watson]

Use OSM Inspector,
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?lon=133.50&lat=-28.14&zoom=4
At "view" select "highways" it shows unnamed minor roads in grey and major
roads in black. It is updated about twice a week.
Peter W34

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM, David Findlay
wrote:

> Is there a way to print out a map that shows all the streets missing names
> in
> red or something? I'd like to clean up the remaining missing ones in my
> area,
> but it's hard to find them all just browsing the map. Thanks,
>
> David
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Finding missing streetnames

[David Findlay]

Is there a way to print out a map that shows all the streets missing names in 
red or something? I'd like to clean up the remaining missing ones in my area, 
but it's hard to find them all just browsing the map. Thanks,

David

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Centenary Hwy / Cunningham Hwy Junction (the Ipswich one)

[Mark Pulley]

Is anyone here familiar with the junction of the Centenary and  
Cunningham Highways south of Ipswich? (Not the other junction at Darra.)


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.66562&lon=152.74265&zoom=17

East of the junction, on approaching the junction the Cunningham  
Highway divides into two - I'd guess each branch is probably one way -  
but on the current map the westbound branch only goes to  
Ipswich-Boonah Road. There is a GPS trace  going from this branch  
(just after the Centenary Highway bridge) to the highway bridge over  
Ipswich-Boonah Road, but no way has been entered yet - is this part of  
the current highway? (There are also some traces from former  
alignments prior to the construction of the Centenary Highway.)


(When I passed this way in late November, I only went eastbound onto  
the Centenary Hwy, so didn't look at the westbound alignments.)


Mark P.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Ross Scanlon]

But not what constitutes a 4WD-only track, or how to indicate the
difference between 4WD-only signposted and "I don't think a 2WD can
drive here", which as I've pointed out isn't accurate, or how to
indicate only modified vehicles with diff locks, upgraded suspension and
winches are suitable, or how much driver skill is required.


Read the wiki:

"Description:

A road signed as only suitable for 4WD Only vehicles"


If it's not signposted as 4wd only and "I don't think a 2WD can drive 
here" then it's 4wd=recommended.


Cheers
Ross

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mass revert now??

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Ian Sergeant :


On 6 January 2012 04:42, Michael Collinson  wrote:


I looked at doing a revert for the street where I lived but found that
just one "Fixed Stuff" changeset was affecting 12,576 different  
ways! I guess

a lot of  other folk are in the same position.

Yes, they are...


The biggest culprit is probably the residential maxspeed=50  
maxspeed:source=default(etc) edit - should we start by removing this  
one (removing just this change while leaving other subsequent edits  
intact)?. This will probably need to be done in a few steps:


1. If the maxspeed and maxspeed:source tags have not been touched  
since, then just remove these tags from the culprit changeset.


2. If the maxspeed has been changed since, then remove the tags from  
the culprit changeset, making sure the new versions remain (e.g. some  
maxspeeds I have corrected to 60, correcting the source tag at the  
same time).


3. For some ways, the maxspeed is correct; for the ones I have come  
across I have changed the source tag (usually to source:maxspeed=sign,  
although some have been maxspeed:source=sign (or =voice)) - can we  
remove the tags from the culprit changeset, adding the maxspeed to the  
later changeset where the source tag was corrected (as it should be  
obvious that I reviewed the maxspeed when adding the source tag)?


Mark P.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mass revert now??

[Ian Sergeant]

On 6 January 2012 04:42, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> I looked at doing a revert for the street where I lived but found that
> just one "Fixed Stuff" changeset was affecting 12,576 different ways! So as
> I might affect other folks, I abandoned the idea for now. Remapping is
> pointless until I can get my original contributions back. Also, I cannot
> visualise areas of  real issues, (OSM Inspector, see bottom), because of a
> huge number of very trivial changes that can easily be got rid of. I guess
> a lot of  other folk are in the same position.
>

Yes, they are...


> I see a number of options to explore for technical doability.
>
> 1) Just roll back the last edits of anyone who has specifically declined.
>
>
Yes!  If there is an object that has been modified by a decliner, and it is
technically feasible to remove that mod, then lets do this now.  It really
saves time in continuing to edit, and reduces the risk that uninvolved
people are out there modifying data that will now be lost that could be
saved.


> 2) Do the full clean now instead of March. This has the drawback that it
> sweeps away folks who may still say yes. There are about 60 folks who have
> created more than 1,000 nodes who have not yet responded.
>
>
This will happen in due course, and I can't see the benefit in having huge
blank spaces on the map any sooner than we need to.

As I and others have been saying for a while, we need manual tools to
remove and rollback decliners edits from the object's history before this
happens automatically.  Being able to manually control the process that
will happen in April automatically for single objects or small areas will
make the process significantly more manageable.  Reinstating old revisions
and suppressing newer ones is a very painful process working with tools
that are all designed to retain data we now have to remove or replace.

Ian.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Sam Couter]

Ross Scanlon  wrote:
> Ok so if your mapping every 10m and the first 10m is 2wd and then
> the next is 4wd the remainder of the track becomes 4wd_only.
> 
> Read the wiki:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes
> 
> It's quite specific as to what constitutes a 4wd.

But not what constitutes a 4WD-only track, or how to indicate the
difference between 4WD-only signposted and "I don't think a 2WD can
drive here", which as I've pointed out isn't accurate, or how to
indicate only modified vehicles with diff locks, upgraded suspension and
winches are suitable, or how much driver skill is required.

> And all your's below has been discussed before.

I've seen previous discussions but no evidence of any conclusions. The
wiki page you linked helps only to define what a 4WD vehicle is
(Landcruiser yes, Forester no, rally car no). It's not nearly as simple
as 4wd_only=yes/no.
-- 
Sam Couter |  mailto:s...@couter.id.au
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mass revert now??

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

If it is possible, rolling back the change set (and a couple of other
similar ones) just on their own would be a good start.

Can this be done if it was not the last change on a way?

  - Ben Kelley.

Ben Kelley
On Jan 6, 2012 4:43 AM, "Michael Collinson"  wrote:

> The License Working Group will shortly be encouraging folks to go out and
> remap areas affected by new contributor terms decliners. However, I am
> mostly speaking here as in individual mapper in Australia.  Cleaning up my
> areas in Sweden and the UK was easy. I then looked at Ultimo in Sydney,
> which I 100% completed in 2006. However, all my edits are overlain by many
> layers from just two declined contributors. Same in several other Sydney
> suburbs, same in Katoomba, same in Port Macquarie, and by one contributor
> in Toowoomba and Dalby. I looked at doing a revert for the street where I
> lived but found that just one "Fixed Stuff" changeset was affecting 12,576
> different ways! So as I might affect other folks, I abandoned the idea for
> now. Remapping is pointless until I can get my original contributions back.
> Also, I cannot visualise areas of  real issues, (OSM Inspector, see
> bottom), because of a huge number of very trivial changes that can easily
> be got rid of. I guess a lot of  other folk are in the same position.
>
> So here is my question to all of us who are still contributing.  Rather
> than waiting, should we ask for Australia data contributed by decliners to
> be carefully removed en masse in the near future? I am happy for an area
> where I am more or less the sole continuing contributor to be used as a
> test.
>
> I see a number of options to explore for technical doability.
>
> 1) Just roll back the last edits of anyone who has specifically declined.
>
> 2) Do the full clean now instead of March. This has the drawback that it
> sweeps away folks who may still say yes. There are about 60 folks who have
> created more than 1,000 nodes who have not yet responded.
>
> 3) Just do highways. Interestingly, the Australian stats at
> http://odbl.poole.ch/ suggests that there is not much impairment outside
> highways, i.e. some decliners have been massively editing other folks
> highway contributions but not much else.
>
> Mike
>
>
> PS OSM Inspector License Change View. If you want to get an idea of what
> is affected, try this tool.  The rules are still being tweaked but it is
> pretty good:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/**osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=136.69336&**
> lat=-26.83695&zoom=4&opacity=**0.98&overlays=overview,wtfe_**
> point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,**wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_**
> harmless,wtfe_point_modified,**wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_**
> line_modified,wtfe_point_**created,wtfe_line_created_cp,**
> wtfe_line_created
>
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Mass revert now??

[Michael Collinson]

The License Working Group will shortly be encouraging folks to go out 
and remap areas affected by new contributor terms decliners. However, I 
am mostly speaking here as in individual mapper in Australia.  Cleaning 
up my areas in Sweden and the UK was easy. I then looked at Ultimo in 
Sydney, which I 100% completed in 2006. However, all my edits are 
overlain by many layers from just two declined contributors. Same in 
several other Sydney suburbs, same in Katoomba, same in Port Macquarie, 
and by one contributor in Toowoomba and Dalby. I looked at doing a 
revert for the street where I lived but found that just one "Fixed 
Stuff" changeset was affecting 12,576 different ways! So as I might 
affect other folks, I abandoned the idea for now. Remapping is pointless 
until I can get my original contributions back. Also, I cannot visualise 
areas of  real issues, (OSM Inspector, see bottom), because of a huge 
number of very trivial changes that can easily be got rid of. I guess a 
lot of  other folk are in the same position.


So here is my question to all of us who are still contributing.  Rather 
than waiting, should we ask for Australia data contributed by decliners 
to be carefully removed en masse in the near future? I am happy for an 
area where I am more or less the sole continuing contributor to be used 
as a test.


I see a number of options to explore for technical doability.

1) Just roll back the last edits of anyone who has specifically declined.

2) Do the full clean now instead of March. This has the drawback that it 
sweeps away folks who may still say yes. There are about 60 folks who 
have created more than 1,000 nodes who have not yet responded.


3) Just do highways. Interestingly, the Australian stats at 
http://odbl.poole.ch/ suggests that there is not much impairment outside 
highways, i.e. some decliners have been massively editing other folks 
highway contributions but not much else.


Mike


PS OSM Inspector License Change View. If you want to get an idea of what 
is affected, try this tool.  The rules are still being tweaked but it is 
pretty good:


http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=136.69336&lat=-26.83695&zoom=4&opacity=0.98&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Ben Johnson]

On 06/01/2012, at 12:27 AM, David Findlay wrote:


On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:34:28 PM Andrew Harvey wrote:

Certainly not disdained upon, although I would prefer tracing imagery
for areas with accurate high-res imagery like nearmap, the GPS tracks
are still most welcome, especially so in other areas.

I generally reserve highway=track for ways wide enough for a car to
traverse, and as per the wiki are "Roads for agricultural use, gravel
roads in the forest etc."

If they are only wide enough for walking or cycling I would use
highway=path.

I thought foot, bicycle, motorcycle, motorcar = no was for where it  
is

signed as not allowed rather than you would find it difficult to
traverse in a...


So for instance I've just added a track in Freshwater National Park.  
It's
designated as a walking trail, but is really a 4wd track with a gate  
at the
end. So I've added it as a Track, but tagged no motorcycle or  
motorcar, but
said foot and bicycle yes. Sounds correct? In another area the  
tracks are
often again wide enough for 4wd's, but fences prevent vehicular  
access so I've

made them paths? Thanks,

David



Gated gravel tracks in national parks wide enough for vehicles are  
often both Fire Trails and Park Management roads that can be used by  
NPWS vehicles. These tracks often are also designated public walking/ 
cycling trails.


I've come across access=forestry ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access 
 ) for forestry management purposes but not sure about emergency  
services.


Can we come up with a common set of tags for such tracks that will -
* allow forestry management access
* allow emergency service access
* allow pedestrian and bicycle access
* prevent general motor vehicle / motorcycle access

Also - do we do this at the gate, or apply access to the section of  
the way itself ?


BJ


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Michael Collinson]

On 05/01/2012 12:36, David Findlay wrote:

...
One thing I didn't find, how do I add a gate
to a route? Several of these places have gates or fences that you can either
go through or over. Thanks,

   


barrier=gate works as a standalone node or part of a fence way

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier

Mike

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[David Findlay]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:34:28 PM Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Certainly not disdained upon, although I would prefer tracing imagery
> for areas with accurate high-res imagery like nearmap, the GPS tracks
> are still most welcome, especially so in other areas.
> 
> I generally reserve highway=track for ways wide enough for a car to
> traverse, and as per the wiki are "Roads for agricultural use, gravel
> roads in the forest etc."
> 
> If they are only wide enough for walking or cycling I would use
> highway=path.
> 
> I thought foot, bicycle, motorcycle, motorcar = no was for where it is
> signed as not allowed rather than you would find it difficult to
> traverse in a...

So for instance I've just added a track in Freshwater National Park. It's 
designated as a walking trail, but is really a 4wd track with a gate at the 
end. So I've added it as a Track, but tagged no motorcycle or motorcar, but 
said foot and bicycle yes. Sounds correct? In another area the tracks are 
often again wide enough for 4wd's, but fences prevent vehicular access so I've 
made them paths? Thanks,

David

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[David Findlay]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:28:27 PM Ian Bennett wrote:
>   Crikey I hope not!! I say this because I am doing something similar.
>   In so far as labelling, see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
>   Wealth of info here :-)

Thanks, forgot about that page. One thing I didn't find, how do I add a gate 
to a route? Several of these places have gates or fences that you can either 
go through or over. Thanks,

David

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Ross Scanlon]

On 05/01/12 18:47, Sam Couter wrote:

Ross Scanlon  wrote:

To me this is really odd.  If the track is 30km long and there is
1km of 4wd only then is not this track all 4wd_only.  As without a
4wd you will not be able to go from one end to the other in a 2wd.


Only if the track has no other access. Said access may not yet be mapped
in OSM. 2WD can also be used to get from one end of the track to the 4WD
section, even if it can't be used to traverse the 4WD section.


Ok so if your mapping every 10m and the first 10m is 2wd and then the 
next is 4wd the remainder of the track becomes 4wd_only.


Read the wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes

It's quite specific as to what constitutes a 4wd.

And all your's below has been discussed before.



Cheers
Ross



Also any track sign posted as 4wd only should be marked in it's
entirety as 4wd_only=yes.


What's the difference between "NPWS sign states 4WD only" (You can be
fined real money for disobeying these signs), "You'd be crazy to drive
a Commodore down here" and "Holy shit, how'd that Commodore get here?!".

The tagging guidelines page isn't clear about this and people in general
have no idea about how far you can really drive a 2WD if you're
determined and skilled. Conversely, people in general have no idea how
easy it is to get stuck in a 4WD if you are not skilled.

Also, contrast tricked-out Toyota Landcruiser with Subaru Forester with
2WD rally car. These vehicles, ignoring driver skill, have vastly
differing off-road capabilities. The 2WD rally car will go places the
4WD Forester won't. Clearly the Forester isn't a serious 4WD like the
Landcruiser, but the rally car isn't 4WD at all. How to indicate that
the Forester isn't suitable for a particular track?

The 4wd_only tag lacks any of the expressiveness needed to solve the
problem and the tagging guidelines don't address it either.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Sam Couter]

Ross Scanlon  wrote:
> To me this is really odd.  If the track is 30km long and there is
> 1km of 4wd only then is not this track all 4wd_only.  As without a
> 4wd you will not be able to go from one end to the other in a 2wd.

Only if the track has no other access. Said access may not yet be mapped
in OSM. 2WD can also be used to get from one end of the track to the 4WD
section, even if it can't be used to traverse the 4WD section.

> Also any track sign posted as 4wd only should be marked in it's
> entirety as 4wd_only=yes.

What's the difference between "NPWS sign states 4WD only" (You can be
fined real money for disobeying these signs), "You'd be crazy to drive
a Commodore down here" and "Holy shit, how'd that Commodore get here?!".

The tagging guidelines page isn't clear about this and people in general
have no idea about how far you can really drive a 2WD if you're
determined and skilled. Conversely, people in general have no idea how
easy it is to get stuck in a 4WD if you are not skilled.

Also, contrast tricked-out Toyota Landcruiser with Subaru Forester with
2WD rally car. These vehicles, ignoring driver skill, have vastly
differing off-road capabilities. The 2WD rally car will go places the
4WD Forester won't. Clearly the Forester isn't a serious 4WD like the
Landcruiser, but the rally car isn't 4WD at all. How to indicate that
the Forester isn't suitable for a particular track?

The 4wd_only tag lacks any of the expressiveness needed to solve the
problem and the tagging guidelines don't address it either.
-- 
Sam Couter |  mailto:s...@couter.id.au
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Christopher Barham]

On 05/01/2012, at 16:59, David Findlay  wrote:

> 
> How should I mark 4wd trails? 

Does this help? : 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines

Chris

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Ross Scanlon]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Mark Pulley  wrote:

How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks,

highway=track; surface=unpaved; if 4wd only then also add 4wd_only=yes


 From experience I've found this is really hard to determine. Often the
road quality varies and I don't really want to subdivide 30km of track
into 10m segments where some are 4wd_only and some aren't. I find it
hard to subjectively decide how small a non-4wd only section is worth
splitting up as a segment.


To me this is really odd.  If the track is 30km long and there is 1km of 
4wd only then is not this track all 4wd_only.  As without a 4wd you will 
not be able to go from one end to the other in a 2wd.


Also any track sign posted as 4wd only should be marked in it's entirety 
as 4wd_only=yes.


Cheers
Ross

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:59 PM, David Findlay
 wrote:
> I contributed quite a bit of stuff locally mapped with GPS(usually multiple
> tracks on multiple different days, averaged) a few years back. I notice now
> there seems to be quite some disdain for GPS tracks.
>
> I've recently recorded various bush walking, biking and 4wd trails, most of
> which aren't easily visible from aerial imagery. Is this ok? I've just uploadd
> a change set before with a few drains that weren't marked and some bush trails
> suitable for walking or cycling. I marked them as "Tracks" with cars,
> motorcyles and stuff set to no.
>
> How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks,

Certainly not disdained upon, although I would prefer tracing imagery
for areas with accurate high-res imagery like nearmap, the GPS tracks
are still most welcome, especially so in other areas.

I generally reserve highway=track for ways wide enough for a car to
traverse, and as per the wiki are "Roads for agricultural use, gravel
roads in the forest etc."

If they are only wide enough for walking or cycling I would use highway=path.

I thought foot, bicycle, motorcycle, motorcar = no was for where it is
signed as not allowed rather than you would find it difficult to
traverse in a...

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>> How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks,
> highway=track; surface=unpaved; if 4wd only then also add 4wd_only=yes

>From experience I've found this is really hard to determine. Often the
road quality varies and I don't really want to subdivide 30km of track
into 10m segments where some are 4wd_only and some aren't. I find it
hard to subjectively decide how small a non-4wd only section is worth
splitting up as a segment.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au