[talk-au] dirt roads - next step
Hi folks, I have put _my_ summary of this discussion on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines discussion tab. if I don't get beaten up too badly about it, I'll move it to the main page. I am presenting it as the outcome of the group discussion so please feel free to have a got at it if you want to. Thanks to all the contributers, its been very positive (and we all know that not always the case with these things !). David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
On 22/10/12 11:20, Ross Scanlon wrote: 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. That is neat. Using broken lines for the casing of classified roads which are unpaved, I think would be a huge improvement to the cartography. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
On 26/10/12 08:43, Andrew Harvey wrote: On 22/10/12 11:20, Ross Scanlon wrote: 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. That is neat. Using broken lines for the casing of classified roads which are unpaved, I think would be a huge improvement to the cartography. I agree. I'm still working on that one. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
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
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 mailto:talk-au
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
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] 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
[talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
On 23 October 2012 11:09, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 ... This is OSM. A missing tag can mean that someone has considered it and decided the default value is appropriate, or it can mean that no one has cast their mind to it. Where there is a possibility of confusion, or something out of the ordinary, then I tag and leave notes for future mappers, so they can improve on it. I think this is Good Mapping, and at worst Does No Harm. If you think it is too, then do the same. If you don't, then don't, it isn't compulsory. Just don't remove tags others consider useful (unless, of course, they are factually wrong). Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
On 23/10/2012, at 11:09 AM, David Bannon wrote: 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 ? Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not be implied by highway=track. Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
On 23/10/12 15:42, Mark Pulley wrote: Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not be implied by highway=track. Seconded, from similar experience. I hasten to add that wet weather might make ANY unpaved road impassable in places, but tracks likely more so. Any experienced driver will understand that. We can't begin to think that we can keep everyone out of trouble by adding a few tags to OSM. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
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 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: 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 snow...@gmx.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag Message-ID: 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 To: dban...@internode.on.net Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads Message-ID: 50836804.1010...@gmx.com 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 access:caravan=unsuitable John -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100 From: Matt White mattwh...@iinet.com.au To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads Message-ID: 50836d2e.8020...@iinet.com.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones ! I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly, because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map data ends up being looked at. As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere ! In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road
[talk-au] dirt roads
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 perspective, rarely maintained, sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a 'track' it would not show up on a map until you zoom in way past where you can get any idea of where it starts and ends. At time of writing, its highway=primary (and, I might note, incomplete), that's possibly dangerously misleading. Conventional vehicles routinely use it but I'd probably give it a 4x4_only=recommended tag. However, none of the mainstream rendering engines observe that tag, it is no real protection for a visiting tourist. Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. Thats probably quite correct from a purpose view but a lot of (especially city based) drivers get quite nervous when they find themselves on a dirt road. If they have got there by following a OSM map showing a road with coloured fill, maybe they have a case ? Most printed maps here in Australia show unsealed roads without a coloured fill. And this does, of course, highlight the need to survey roads. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
A couple of quick comments: There is a 4wd tag already in use - 4wd_only:yes|recommended (with no being a pointless value) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes There's about 1000 instances of this tag in use in Australia. There was a proposal kicking around ages ago that was trying to define some improved classification for unpaved roads (as unpaved roads come in all sorts of varieties). I think the discussion got pretty acrimonious and petty, but the thought was there. There are roads I've been on where the surface would be OK for a normal car, but the road is a series of sharp humps that would easily ground a standard clearance vehicle. Seasonal closure is another area where I don't think the tagging is complete/useful. The current tag is dry_weather_only=yes or access=dry_weather_only, which is valid for any road that is impassable in the wet due to surface condition or creek/river crossings, but there are also tracks with explicit closures (usually mid may to the first weekend in September or October) - generally marked as 'SSC' in the VicMap series of maps. Don't have a solution, but it something that might need working on as there are a lot of SSC roads in Victoria and NSW Anyway, I'm all for improved tagging of dirt roads - it's my favourite kind of mapping (usually cos it turns out to involve a couple of days of camping and getting out into the bush Matt On 21/10/2012 12:03 PM, 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 perspective, rarely maintained, sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/12 12:03, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: lanes=[1; 2] I thing the lanes tag is best not used, unless there's more than two marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road. This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes I have two reasons for arguing this. Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM maintenance (and quite unnecessarily). And it's something else to get wrong if it's used routinely. It's easier for everybody if its used is reserved for the special cases. Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs. If every road in Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download. Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. I think a lot of roads get pumped up to be more important than they are. The great majority of country roads should be unclassified. It's hard to make a judgement as to when a different tag should apply. Is it a main connecting road between towns with a Post Office? How many cars per hour travel it? Another example is the tagging of the Hume Highway as a motorway. Most of it isn't. The Hume Freeway in Victoria is, but most of the NSW section has normal side-road junctions, and is certainly not a motorway. By tagging it as a motorway, we've destroyed this useful distinction. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
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. I agree lanes=2 is almost certainly unnecessary. Think the wiki already says so. So, I suggest, your comment does raise the question of just how narrow a road needs to be before it gets called lanes=1 ? Most drivers on a dirt road with good visibility tend to sit close to the middle and drift off to the left when some one approaches. Thats one end of the scale. At the other, you are continuously (and nervously) looking for somewhere to pull in case there is oncoming traffic. (anyone been down Bull Track in the high country ?) I tend to think that somewhere in the middle (so to speak) is right, if you expect to need to slow down substantially to allow another car to pass, that is lanes=1. Sadly there is quite a lot of roads that fit that description. Agree with your other comments, especially about the Hume ! David - Original Message - From: John Henderson To: Cc: Sent:Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:11:07 +1100 Subject:Re: [talk-au] dirt roads On 21/10/12 12:03, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: lanes=[1; 2] I thing the lanes tag is best not used, unless there's more than two marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road. This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes I have two reasons for arguing this. Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM maintenance (and quite unnecessarily). And it's something else to get wrong if it's used routinely. It's easier for everybody if its used is reserved for the special cases. Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs. If every road in Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download. Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. I think a lot of roads get pumped up to be more important than they are. The great majority of country roads should be unclassified. It's hard to make a judgement as to when a different tag should apply. Is it a main connecting road between towns with a Post Office? How many cars per hour travel it? Another example is the tagging of the Hume Highway as a motorway. Most of it isn't. The Hume Freeway in Victoria is, but most of the NSW section has normal side-road junctions, and is certainly not a motorway. By tagging it as a motorway, we've destroyed this useful distinction. John ___ 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] dirt roads
Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones ! I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly, because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map data ends up being looked at. As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere ! David - Original Message - From: Matt White To: Cc: Sent:Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:33:24 +1100 Subject:Re: [talk-au] dirt roads A couple of quick comments: There is a 4wd tag already in use - 4wd_only:yes|recommended (with no being a pointless value) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes [1] There's about 1000 instances of this tag in use in Australia. There was a proposal kicking around ages ago that was trying to define some improved classification for unpaved roads (as unpaved roads come in all sorts of varieties). I think the discussion got pretty acrimonious and petty, but the thought was there. There are roads I've been on where the surface would be OK for a normal car, but the road is a series of sharp humps that would easily ground a standard clearance vehicle. Seasonal closure is another area where I don't think the tagging is complete/useful. The current tag is dry_weather_only=yes or access=dry_weather_only, which is valid for any road that is impassable in the wet due to surface condition or creek/river crossings, but there are also tracks with explicit closures (usually mid may to the first weekend in September or October) - generally marked as 'SSC' in the VicMap series of maps. Don't have a solution, but it something that might need working on as there are a lot of SSC roads in Victoria and NSW Anyway, I'm all for improved tagging of dirt roads - it's my favourite kind of mapping (usually cos it turns out to involve a couple of days of camping and getting out into the bush Matt On 21/10/2012 12:03 PM, dban...@internode.on.net [2] 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 [3] 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
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
Ah dirt roads how difficult you are! Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make it any less important than many others. David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some (I have travelled the whole length of it quite recently and we passed a few Falcons and Commodores), it is in fact a NT state highway, as is the Sandover Hwy and Tanami Rd (Routes 12, 14 and 5 respectively) and should therefore, going by wiki guidelines, be classified as highway=primary. Likewise the Birdsville, Strzelecki and Oodnadatta Tracks are all SA D roads and should all be highway=tertiary (Birdsville used to have a national classification). These just need to have their additional tags like surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc. I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map rendering and we're currently going over the issue of how to render dirt roads/tracks, what should classify as a dirt road or track and how to populate the outback with a few roads. Currently we see highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection purpose - these would be the real backwater tracks in the outback, or the majority of 4wd tracks on the east coast. highway=unclassified are any sealed or unsealed roads that can't be classified as residential - such as 2wd forest drives (if you know the area, the Watagan Forest Drive is an example). From there up it follows the wiki - and it doesn't matter if the road is 1 land or 8, 2wd or 4wd etc. A 4wd track on the east coast can be a highway in the centre. For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads tagged 4wd_only Cheers Nathan From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 1:11 PM Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 15 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 (dban...@internode.on.net) 2. Re: dirt roads (Matt White) 3. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:33:21 +1030 From: dban...@internode.on.net To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] dirt roads Message-ID: 46217a218f3c33de582b3f9464710cf016d5a...@webmail.internode.on.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
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 access:caravan=unsuitable John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones ! I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly, because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map data ends up being looked at. As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere ! In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC). The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD only' to the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have anything. I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of information - often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is navigable in a 2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so once you are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important requirement. Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA. Matt ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/12 13:35, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere ! Personally, I would find a tag 4x4_only=no source:4x4_only=survey Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has surveyed it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement every one is ! Thanks folks ! If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary in a few days. From: Nathan Van Der Meulen Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make it any less important than many others. Far from it, I live on a dirt road ! David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some ...pass a few Falcons and Commodores), Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had a broken rear axle. it is in fact a NT state highway Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag. These just need to have their additional tags like surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc. Exactly! But we need to see those tags used. I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map rendering Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ? highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection purpose Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4. For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads tagged 4wd_only Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface= but it does not show up on the maps most people see. Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and 4x4_only=recommended ? Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to be updated. David - Original Message - From: Ian Sergeant Personally, I would find a tag 4x4_only=no source:4x4_only=survey Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has surveyed it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21 October 2012 16:05, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to be updated. Not at all. It is the correct default situation, of course, that a 4x4 is not required. However a good survey of roads that are remote should consider including additional detail on the road surface. Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no guarantee that a 4x4 is not required. 4x4_only=no is a useful observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations). I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not required on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the default, so the tag is useless. Or worse still, does a selection for all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
