Just jumping in here with some ideas. If you have an objective tag it is a
function of the track. But if you have a subjective tag then it is a
function of the user of the road/track. So a subjective tag needs to be from
the perspective of the user e.g
4WD_Suitability: Yes (unconditional); No (unconditional) and any number of
conditions (seasonal, weather, water level, ground clearance, winch
required)
2WD_Suitability: similar to above but other sorts of conditions
and so on for bicycles, horses, motorbikes, foot
Also one could substitute Recommended and Not recommended for Yes and No and
treat the conditions as recommendations
My $0.02
Ken
> -Original Message-
> From: David Bannon [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013 9:42 PM
> To: waldo000...@gmail.com
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
>
>
>
> Ah, waldo00, I guess I may have jumped the gun a bit,
> sorry ! I initially misread your message as saying subjective
> tags are a no-no. Can I paraphrase you ? Use objective tags
> if possible, then, if necessary, subjective ones determined
> by some sound guidelines documented on the wiki ?
>
> We are marching side by side so far
>
> However, I don't think we have suitable, sound guidelines on
> the wiki !
>
> I tried to get some support for extending tracktype= (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo ) but not enough
> people were interested. I did not consider it a great
> solution but was one that would work. Then tried to get some
> other consensus solution, again, not enough interest.
>
> So, its just
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelin
> es#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads
>
>
> Sigh
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 15:47 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
> > David, to me your response seems to be mostly in agreement
> with what I
> > said. On what point, exactly, do you disagree?
> >
> >
> > Do you at least agree that a useful tag is one whose
> meaning is either
> > 1) immediately obvious (e.g. like width=*) OR 2)
> clearly/objectively
> > described in the wiki?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Bannon
> > wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure I agree with you Waldo.. (???).
> >
> > Its useful in my opinion when ever storing data (of any
> > nature) to think
> > about how that data will be used. While we will often find
> > other use
> > cases later on, addressing the primary one is important.
> >
> > I think very few users of map data are prepared to, eg,
> > install mapnik
> > or grep through the downloaded data relating to a particular
> > road they
> > may consider using. Instead, they want to get a idea of just
> > how
> > passable a road might be. They are asking a very subject
> > question and
> > expect a subject answer.
> >
> > They want to know if its a sealed or not. If not, they will
> > ask if its
> > suitable for a conventional car, an SUV, a 4wd, a "blood and
> > guts 4wd".
> > Armed with that info, they look at their own car and their
> > willingness
> > to take risks and/or have some fun.
> >
> > Thats all very subjective ! My point is, most of
> that process
> > is, of
> > necessity, completely subjective, not just the
> tagging we are
> > talking
> > about here.
> >
> > The smoothness= tag
> > ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
> > ) tries to address this, but smoothness is quite
> often not the
> > issue and
> > the values given to smoothness= are simple horrible (pun
> > intended). (I
> > suggested, in the past, we should alias something like
> > 'drivability' to
> > 'smoothness'). Anyway, smoothness= has all those subjective
> > problems,
> > its there and usable. If I could get over the idea
> of calling
> > my
> > favorite tracks 'horrible', I'd use it !
> >
> >
> > So, at the risk of being called politically
> incorrect, I think
> > we need
> > to collect data that can and will be used.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 07:58 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Sometimes people think that it's better
> to slice up
> > > information into
> > > lots of little "objective" facts, like
> (in the case
> > of
> > > mountain bike
> > > trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a
> >
