Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Unfortunately i can't find my original comments on tracks and 4wd_only, but I'll concede that highway=track doesn't necessarily mean 4wd_only=yes. I don't like 4wd_only=no because many tracks that may be used by 2wds can rapidly deteriorate to a 4wd track and, as previously mentioned, weather can change everything. I know forestry roads that are definitely classed as touristy roads but, add a bit of rain and keep the grader away for a while and that road is pretty rough in a 4wd. No tag leaves the onus on the user to use his/her own discretion. There's also the problem of what type of 2wd. Yeah i know I'm picking at this but I've heard the comments from the knuckleheads. A Falcon is a 2wd - as is a Kia Carnival and a Jag and a Ferrari. Does 2wd_only mean all those? No tag = up to the driver to work it out. Nathan From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:00 PM Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 20 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. dirt roads - a summary (David Bannon) 2. Re: dirt roads - a summary (Ian Sergeant) 3. Re: dirt roads - a summary (Mark Pulley) 4. Re: dirt roads - a summary (John Henderson) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:39:53 +1030 From: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary Message-ID: 38c3ab4655c281ac64279a1e5bb9cf80e7083...@webmail.internode.on.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Folks, a summary of discussion on dirt roads before I hack at the discussion tab of Australian_Road_Tagging. Seems to me two issues not completely clear - 1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight, we need to use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats what 4x4_only tag is for. Whats the feeling here folks ? 2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked 4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's appropriate. Particularly in places where there may be some assumption that the tracks are often pretty tough. I am not completely convinced, see two problems, it does, to some extent, change the idea that default is 'no'. Secondly, importantly, tracks change over time and people opinions on what is and is not a 4x4 track vary. Saying you will be OK in a conventional car is a lot stronger statement than you might/will need a 4x4. Comments please ? At present, mainstream rendering? emphasizes the purpose of a road. Trouble is that (possibly uninformed) people look at the maps and assume a thick prominent line means a well maintained, probably sealed road. I think there is some agreement that a means of showing the 4x4-ness of a track on the mainstream (ie mapnik) maps is desirable and possibly a safety issue. The best way to show this might be to append 4x4 to the name of tracks where 4x4_only is set to yes or recommended (Matt).? Similarly, showing sealed/unsealed may also be a good idea. I note that if you look at the slippery map on osm.org, click Map Key at a zoomed in level there is a key for unsealed road, a thick grey dashed line. I spent an hour looking for an example of that on Australian and overseas maps but found none. But thats what we want ??? If we are to have even the slightest chance of getting changes in this space, it will be because we all agree and play the safety card ! I will clarify lanes=1 where two cars cannot pass at 'normal' speed (Paul, John). And no lanes= tag for default situation. I will also suggest that survey is probably required for tracks, sat or aerial sources risk missing things like water crossing or gates that completely change the nature of the whole road. A safety issue again. David -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/0082fee5/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:08:18 +1100 From: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com To: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary Message-ID: calda4yltfkux7kx6o3ywnsso69vtss+9zzrno7yfuh_tcac...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 23 October 2012
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 23/10/12 22:31, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote: I don't like 4wd_only=no because many tracks that may be used by 2wds can rapidly deteriorate to a 4wd track and, as previously mentioned, weather can change everything. I know forestry roads that are definitely classed as touristy roads but, add a bit of rain and keep the grader away for a while and that road is pretty rough in a 4wd. No tag leaves the onus on the user to use his/her own discretion. I don't believe this is currently the case. No tag implies the default, not use at your own risk, depending on weather conditions, etc. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] surface tag
Hi People Sorry if this has already been stated, I have not mapped since the licence change and I am only reading some emails. I my humble opinion, surface=unpaved should not be used. surface=paved should only be used is the surface is literally paved with brick, bluestone, cobblestone, whatever. surface=asphalt should be used for asphalt or bitumen. surface=gravel should be used for gravel roads. surface=dirt should be used if there is no surface covering, the track has been literally made out of whatever the ground is made out of. Think fire breaks. surface=sand where there is no surface covering, but the ground is sand or very sandy. surface=concrete for concrete bike or walking tracks. surface=wood for wooden walkways, jetty's and so forth. I even have a faint memory of using surface=grass, where the track was very overgrown, but too many tags might not be so good for rendering machines. I do not think I ever used it, but I think there is a smoothness tag which might be worth some research if you are worried about a track falling between 4x4_only=[recommended; yes;no]. The 4x4_only tag might be better left to legal definitions set by rangers. As well as a speed_limit tag, thought should be given to a speed_avg tag. Some roads might have a legal speed limit of 100 kmh, but you can be lucky to get out of second gear because of the rough road surface, or even heavily used roads that are normally very crowded, and the average speed is actually not very fast. The speed_avg tag would be handy for routing engines. My 2 cents worth. Andrew. On 21 October 2012 12:03, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span. So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues. So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki. Unmade roads These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line. highway=track surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] 4x4_only=[recommended; yes] source=survey Made but unsealed roads. Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have run offs to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only. highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary] surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] source=survey Use of the highway tag on dirt roads. While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would understand that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between Tertiary roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to dirt roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented as viable routes for people passing through the area. Some care needs be exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as 'secondary'. Discussion Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its purpose. A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is probably a track from a road condition
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes. An example of 4wd_only=yes here: http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14lat=-20.73023lon=116.99701layers=B0F The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows 4WD Recommended. It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed. Cheers Ross On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote: Hi David Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some more detail. We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done. Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc. Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact there are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf. Nathan *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson) 2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson) 3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White) 4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) 5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) (dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net) 6. Re: dirt roads (dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net) 7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100 From: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com mailto:snow...@gmx.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag Message-ID: 50836615.5000...@gmx.com mailto:50836615.5000...@gmx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote: It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds. Any thoughts? I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional conditions should be flagged as appropriate. But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as are truck drivers. The width or est_width tags from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in most such circumstances. John -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100 From: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com mailto:snow...@gmx.com To: dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads Message-ID: 50836804.1010...@gmx.com mailto:50836804.1010...@gmx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 21/10/12 13:28, dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net wrote: OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest too!) I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road. That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible. I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock face on the other. Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as access:caravan=unsuitable John -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100 From: Matt White mattwh...@iinet.com.au mailto:mattwh...@iinet.com.au To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
Ross, thats pretty cool. My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki and then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's slippery map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all expected it to be do-able but nice to have it confirmed. Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ? I must admit I don't know just how good the relationship between fosm and osm is ? David - Original Message - From: i...@4x4falcon.com To: Cc: Sent:Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:20:56 +1000 Subject:Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes. An example of 4wd_only=yes here: http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14lat=-20.73023lon=116.99701layers=B0F The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows 4WD Recommended. It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed. Cheers Ross On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote: Hi David Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some more detail We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done. Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc. Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact there are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf. Nathan *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmaporg/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-owner@openstreetmaporg When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson) 2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson) 3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White) 4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) 5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) (dban...@internode.on.net ) 6. Re: dirt roads (dban...@internode.on.net ) 7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100 From: John Henderson To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote: It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds. Any thoughts? I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional conditions should be flagged as appropriate. But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as are truck drivers. The width or est_width tags from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in most such circumstances. John -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100 From: John Henderson To: dban...@internode.on.net Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 21/10/12 13:28, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest too!) I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road. That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible. I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock face on the other. Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
Re: [talk-au] surface tag
On 24 October 2012 08:05, Andrew Laughton laughton.and...@gmail.com wrote: I my humble opinion, surface=unpaved should not be used. surface=paved should only be used is the surface is literally paved with brick, bluestone, cobblestone, whatever. I think, regardless of the validity of your argument, that this horse has well and truly bolted. I even have a faint memory of using surface=grass, where the track was very overgrown, but too many tags might not be so good for rendering machines. I really like the two level tags. Like natural=water, water=bay. Or surface=unpaved, unpaved=gravel This allows a basic parser to make some sense of what is there, and those who care about the detail can drill down. This is the documented method with some tags, but not with others, such is the nature of the beast. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
On 24 October 2012 09:48, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki and then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's slippery map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all expected it to be do-able but nice to have it confirmed. Hi David, Have you seen this ticket? https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1447 Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ? The trac call already has examples, do you think they are suitable? I don't see the purpose in linking to styles from third parties unless we have explicit permission from their owner/creator to use them in OSM. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] surface tag
Hi. Common usage is that surface=paved is any kind of sealed road including asphalt. - Ben Kelley On Oct 24, 2012 9:23 AM, Andrew Laughton laughton.and...@gmail.com wrote: Hi People Sorry if this has already been stated, I have not mapped since the licence change and I am only reading some emails. I my humble opinion, surface=unpaved should not be used. surface=paved should only be used is the surface is literally paved with brick, bluestone, cobblestone, whatever. surface=asphalt should be used for asphalt or bitumen. surface=gravel should be used for gravel roads. surface=dirt should be used if there is no surface covering, the track has been literally made out of whatever the ground is made out of. Think fire breaks. surface=sand where there is no surface covering, but the ground is sand or very sandy. surface=concrete for concrete bike or walking tracks. surface=wood for wooden walkways, jetty's and so forth. I even have a faint memory of using surface=grass, where the track was very overgrown, but too many tags might not be so good for rendering machines. I do not think I ever used it, but I think there is a smoothness tag which might be worth some research if you are worried about a track falling between 4x4_only=[recommended; yes;no]. The 4x4_only tag might be better left to legal definitions set by rangers. As well as a speed_limit tag, thought should be given to a speed_avg tag. Some roads might have a legal speed limit of 100 kmh, but you can be lucky to get out of second gear because of the rough road surface, or even heavily used roads that are normally very crowded, and the average speed is actually not very fast. The speed_avg tag would be handy for routing engines. My 2 cents worth. Andrew. On 21 October 2012 12:03, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span. So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues. So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki. Unmade roads These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line. highway=track surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] 4x4_only=[recommended; yes] source=survey Made but unsealed roads. Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have run offs to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only. highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary] surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] source=survey Use of the highway tag on dirt roads. While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would understand that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between Tertiary roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to dirt roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented as viable routes for people passing through the
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
I'm happy for you to use that link as a reference. I'll refrain from commenting on the remainder of that para. When the 4wd_only tagging was introduced it was attempted to get this included in the mapping but there was reluctance to do so. Like most proposals it did not have a rendering proposal included and is something that should be mandatory for all proposals. Including mapnik xml at the very least. Cheers Ross On 24/10/12 08:48, David Bannon wrote: Ross, thats pretty cool. My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki and then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's slippery map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all expected it to be do-able but nice to have it confirmed. Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ? I must admit I don't know just how good the relationship between fosm and osm is ? David - Original Message - From: i...@4x4falcon.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Cc: Sent: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:20:56 +1000 Subject: Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes. An example of 4wd_only=yes here: http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14lat=-20.73023lon=116.99701layers=B0F The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows 4WD Recommended. It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed. Cheers Ross On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote: Hi David Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some more detail. We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done. Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc. Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact there are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf. Nathan *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson) 2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson) 3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White) 4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) 5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) (dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net) 6. Re: dirt roads (dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net) 7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100 From: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com mailto:snow...@gmx.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag Message-ID: 50836615.5000...@gmx.com mailto:50836615.5000...@gmx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote: It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds. Any thoughts? I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional conditions should be flagged as appropriate. But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are especially aware of the need to drive to the
