Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks, Josh - good work!

How about bare solid clay eg
https://www.weekendnotes.com/im/007/01/duck-creek-road11.JPG

Definitely =unpaved, but then unpaved=??? ?

On a similar topic, I mapped an airfield in Western Qld the other day, & it
was listed as being "sealed aggregate" - what would we call that?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 11:27, Josh Marshall 
wrote:

> Eh, no time like the present. I may not leave these photos up forever but
> here’s just a quick sample of the variety of roads I go on. If we end up
> discussing these indepth I’ll put them somewhere permanent.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15u0CQQTI8GXhX8FeQcDvUoDUi9tByMWg?usp=sharing
>
> I would be inclined to tag all of these as surface=unpaved and
> surface:unpaved=gravel, with the exception of 000 (surface:unpaved=rock?)
> and 005 obviously (surface:unpaved=sand). And my views on the smoothness
> follow as well, and I’d suggest we update the wiki [0] to have more
> examples and relate it to more specific vehicles, bicycles, and foot access.
>
> File_000 with the 4wd is an example of a fire trail with exposed rock,
> impassable except on foot, running. Too steep to ride a bike up unless
> you’re exceptionally skilled or electrified. The track at the top and
> bottom of the image is just bare ground, no added aggregate.
> (smoothness=horrible)
>
> 001: a typical trail on a power line easement. You can see the grading and
> aggregate, but also the bare rock starting to come through
> (smoothness=very_bad)
>
> 002: graded and aggregate (smoothness=bad)
>
> 003: fire trail left-to-right through a MTB park: graded and aggregate
> (smoothness=very_bad)
>
> 004: near the coast. aggregate added but grass has grown up
> (smoothness=very_bad)
>
> 005: sand fire trail (smoothness=horrible)
>
>
> [0]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
>
>
> On 4 Mar 2021, at 8:37 pm, Josh Marshall 
> wrote:
>
> I do long runs through state forest and national park pretty much every
> fortnight. I’ll start a collection and post them up in a few weeks. What’s
> the best place to put them so they’re somewhat permanent?... and that
> raises the question; do we start a proposal page according to [0] or take
> it to the tagging mailing list first?
>
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 7:57 pm, Sebastian S.  wrote:
>
>> Would you happen to have some photos of such unpaved roads?
>>
>> In my opinion we should consider adding a new surface tag if we feel we
>> need one and can describe the surface sufficiently.
>>
>> All this would start with some photos and a discussion in my opinion.
>> Hence the question.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Seb
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 February 2021 5:22:43 pm AEDT, Josh Marshall <
>> josh.p.marsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel
  refers to railway
 ballast, not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs
 on unpaved roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface
 "gravel" in common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute
 gravel as described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here,
 erroneously depending on your point of view.

>>>
>>> This is a matter of interest to me too. I spend a substantial amount of
>>> time running+riding on fire trails in NSW (all highway=track), and the
>>> surface type is useful and indeed used in a number of the route planners I
>>> use. I have changed a few roads back to 'unpaved' from 'gravel' due to the
>>> rule of following the description in the surface= guidelines rather than
>>> the name.
>>>
>>> My question then however, is exactly what to tag the tracks beyond
>>> "unpaved".
>>>
>>> There are definitely sections that are somewhat regularly graded and
>>> appear to have extra aggregate/fine gravel added. From the surface= wiki,
>>> these most closely align with surface=compacted. But fine_gravel is
>>> potentially an option too. Many of these are 2wd accessible when it is dry.
>>> (Typically smoothness=bad.)
>>>
>>> There are also others, usually less travelled, which are bare rock,
>>> clay, dirt, sand, whatever was there. Is it best just to leave these as
>>> surface=unpaved, and add a smoothness=very_bad or horrible tag? None of the
>>> surface= tags really seem to apply.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 16:45, Little Maps  wrote:
>>>
 Hi Brian and co, in Victoria and southern NSW where I've edited a lot
 of roads, highway=track is nearly totally confined to dirt roads in
 forested areas, as described in the Aus tagging guidelines, viz: "
 highway=track Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar
 roads. Gravel roads connecting towns etc. should be tagged as appropriate
 (secondary, tertiary or unclassified), along with the surface=unpaved or
 more specific surface=* tag."

 In your US-chat someone wrote, "...in the USA, 

Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Josh Marshall]

Eh, no time like the present. I may not leave these photos up forever but 
here’s just a quick sample of the variety of roads I go on. If we end up 
discussing these indepth I’ll put them somewhere permanent.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15u0CQQTI8GXhX8FeQcDvUoDUi9tByMWg?usp=sharing

I would be inclined to tag all of these as surface=unpaved and 
surface:unpaved=gravel, with the exception of 000 (surface:unpaved=rock?) and 
005 obviously (surface:unpaved=sand). And my views on the smoothness follow as 
well, and I’d suggest we update the wiki [0] to have more examples and relate 
it to more specific vehicles, bicycles, and foot access.

File_000 with the 4wd is an example of a fire trail with exposed rock, 
impassable except on foot, running. Too steep to ride a bike up unless you’re 
exceptionally skilled or electrified. The track at the top and bottom of the 
image is just bare ground, no added aggregate. (smoothness=horrible)

001: a typical trail on a power line easement. You can see the grading and 
aggregate, but also the bare rock starting to come through (smoothness=very_bad)

002: graded and aggregate (smoothness=bad)

003: fire trail left-to-right through a MTB park: graded and aggregate 
(smoothness=very_bad)

004: near the coast. aggregate added but grass has grown up 
(smoothness=very_bad)

005: sand fire trail (smoothness=horrible)


[0]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness


> On 4 Mar 2021, at 8:37 pm, Josh Marshall  wrote:
> 
> I do long runs through state forest and national park pretty much every 
> fortnight. I’ll start a collection and post them up in a few weeks. What’s 
> the best place to put them so they’re somewhat permanent?... and that raises 
> the question; do we start a proposal page according to [0] or take it to the 
> tagging mailing list first?
> 
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 7:57 pm, Sebastian S.  > wrote:
> Would you happen to have some photos of such unpaved roads?
> 
> In my opinion we should consider adding a new surface tag if we feel we need 
> one and can describe the surface sufficiently.
> 
> All this would start with some photos and a discussion in my opinion. Hence 
> the question.
> 
> Cheers,
> Seb
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 February 2021 5:22:43 pm AEDT, Josh Marshall  > wrote:
> The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel 
>  refers to railway ballast, 
> not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs on unpaved 
> roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface "gravel" in 
> common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute gravel as 
> described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here, erroneously 
> depending on your point of view.
> 
> This is a matter of interest to me too. I spend a substantial amount of time 
> running+riding on fire trails in NSW (all highway=track), and the surface 
> type is useful and indeed used in a number of the route planners I use. I 
> have changed a few roads back to 'unpaved' from 'gravel' due to the rule of 
> following the description in the surface= guidelines rather than the name. 
> 
> My question then however, is exactly what to tag the tracks beyond "unpaved".
> 
> There are definitely sections that are somewhat regularly graded and appear 
> to have extra aggregate/fine gravel added. From the surface= wiki, these most 
> closely align with surface=compacted. But fine_gravel is potentially an 
> option too. Many of these are 2wd accessible when it is dry. (Typically 
> smoothness=bad.)
> 
> There are also others, usually less travelled, which are bare rock, clay, 
> dirt, sand, whatever was there. Is it best just to leave these as 
> surface=unpaved, and add a smoothness=very_bad or horrible tag? None of the 
> surface= tags really seem to apply.
> 
> 
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 16:45, Little Maps  > wrote:
> Hi Brian and co, in Victoria and southern NSW where I've edited a lot of 
> roads, highway=track is nearly totally confined to dirt roads in forested 
> areas, as described in the Aus tagging guidelines, viz: " highway=track 
> Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. Gravel roads 
> connecting towns etc. should be tagged as appropriate (secondary, tertiary or 
> unclassified), along with the surface=unpaved or more specific surface=* tag."
> 
> In your US-chat someone wrote, "...in the USA, "most" roads that "most" 
> people encounter (around here, in my experience, YMMV...) are surface=paved. 
> Gravel or dirt roads are certainly found, but they are less and less common." 
> By contrast, in regional Australia, most small roads are unpaved/dirt/gravel. 
> 
> In SE Australia, public roads in agricultural areas that are 
> unpaved/dirt/gravel/etc are usually tagged as