Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
I have been following this topic on a "casual basis" (ie I don't feel passionately about it), but I think that what you have written sounds fine. I guess that you will hear from people that feel passionately against your views, but those that think that what you have written makes sense might form the silent majority. Don't give up - there will always be views at odds with your own. Maybe all the others that think the proposal makes sense should speak up too ! regards Ian - Message: 1 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:01:38 +1030 From: "David Bannon" To: "Andrew Harvey" Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" OK, I have to recognise that my "proposed proposal" is not attracting any support. So I will walk away. However, that leaves the problem unsolved and , I still think, dangerously so. Are there any alternatives folks ? Should we (ie in Australia) encourage people to use smoothness= for example ? I hate the tag name and the values associated with it but maybe its the only game in town ? There are already considerably more horrible, very_horrible and impassable values set against smoothness than 4wd_Only? tags and by a considerable factor. It does offer a degree of "fine grain" against 4wd_only's 'yes' or not there. However, (eg) OSM website map ignores smoothness= (unlike tracktype) but that may be becuse not enough people are complaining about it. But I must say, I would not feel anywhere near as confident asking renderers about smoothness= as I would about an extended tracktype=. Please consider David,? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
On 13/11/12 20:29, Ian Steer wrote: > I have been following this topic on a "casual basis" (ie I don't feel > passionately about it), but I think that what you have written sounds fine. > > I guess that you will hear from people that feel passionately against your > views, but those that think that what you have written makes sense might > form the silent majority. > > Don't give up - there will always be views at odds with your own. > > Maybe all the others that think the proposal makes sense should speak up too > ! Absolutely. I may have expressed my concerns, but I very much encourage others to voice their thoughts. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
On 13 November 2012 17:38, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I may have expressed my concerns, but I very much encourage others to > voice their thoughts. > > OK :-) I've been quietly watching the back-and-forth. My opinion (and mapping usage) is that smoothness= and surface= offer the simplest and best way of describing the road condition and its suitably for use with all sorts of vehicles, not just 4wd. In terms of legal requirements (something which I admit I hadn't really thought of), someone else mentioned the use of access=. To me that would fit well with the established use of access=, it's just that there doesn't seem to be any sort of convention that relates to 4wd. For rendering, no surface= or surface=asphalt/concrete/paved would produce the current rendering. Any other surface= would produce a dashed line/casing. To me that's a relatively simple distinction that would be more appealing to those maintaining the renderers. -- Andrew ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
Hi, adrian here, yeah don't assume no rpelies means no support - Ive just been waiting for the "its time to vote" email. Think that the idea for extending tracktype is great. Think that the argument to use is that if OSM wants to be considered global then it is just common sense that there must be a visual and electronic indication that a major road is unsealed or requires a specialised vehicle - there are many places in the world where this is the case. And I think there is nothing to be feared in subjectivity - all mapping is subjective, in the end. Otheriwise we would tag a road with width, surface,colour, construction method, traffic flow, traffic destination, speedlimit etc and ask the renderer to deduce that it is a primary or secondary road. This process has been formalised in the case of most roads by a governemnet agency - but it is still subjective - we are just all so used to it that it seems objective. Subjective information from a local oe experienced traveller - is invaluable and should be embraced - not discouraged. That's why guide books and sketch maps are still widely used in specialist applications - eg bushwalking, skiing, rockclimbing etc. So roll on election day.. Cheers. > From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 65, Issue 20 > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:00:04 + > > 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. Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. (Michael Kr?mer) >2. Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. (Ian Steer) >3. Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. (Andrew Harvey) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:49:17 +0100 > From: Michael Kr?mer > To: Talk-AU OSM > Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi, > > Well, I'm one of those European countries with almost no unpaved roads - > and therefore also think they should be rendered differently. A driver > encountering an unpaved road here is usually quite confused if that's > really an official road... > > But looking at some of the older discussions around this (e.g. [1] or [2]) > I wouldn't really expect any change to the default rendering anywhere soon. > So I wonder if anyone ever considered to provide an own map rendering > taking the surface/smoothness/4wd_only into account? As the default > rendering doesn't really match the traditional coloring scheme in Germany > there's a special "German style" available ([3]). > > But I assume the problem is to have enough ressources for this... > > I didn't entirely follow this thread so I hope this isn't something which > came up earlier and which I have missed. > > Michael > > - > [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2011-June/022789.html > [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-January/055961.html > [3] > http://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=10&lat=52.51448&lon=13.40603&layers=B000TF > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121113/98cc87a0/attachment-0001.html> > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:29:26 +0800 > From: "Ian Steer" > To: > Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. > Message-ID: <005101cdc181$6019fbf0$204df3d0$@net.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I have been following this topic on a "casual basis" (ie I don't feel > passionately about it), but I think that what you have written sounds fine. > > I guess that you will hear from people that feel passionately against your > views, but those that think that what you have written makes sense might > form the silent majority. > > Don't give up - there will always be views at odds with your own. > > Maybe all the others that think the proposal makes sense should speak
Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
For rendering, no surface= or surface=asphalt/concrete/paved would produce the current rendering. Any other surface= would produce a dashed line/casing. To me that's a relatively simple distinction that would be more appealing to those maintaining the renderers. I've been working on this rendering and I'd suggest the reverse of this for the condition as it is easier to implement in mapnik. It would produce the same result so I put it up as a tip for anyone wanting to implement this. Any thing that has surface=unpaved/dirt/sand/gravel/fine_gravel/earth/compacted/clay/grass/pebblestone/ground is rendered with the dashed line/casing and all others are rendered as normal. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
