[talk-au] dirt roads - next step

2012-10-26 Thread David Bannon


 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

2012-10-25 Thread Andrew Harvey
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

2012-10-25 Thread Ross Scanlon

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

2012-10-23 Thread Nathan Van Der Meulen
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

2012-10-23 Thread Ian Sergeant

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

2012-10-23 Thread Ross Scanlon

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

2012-10-23 Thread David Bannon
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

2012-10-23 Thread Ian Sergeant
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

2012-10-23 Thread Ross Scanlon

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

2012-10-22 Thread David Bannon
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

2012-10-22 Thread Ian Sergeant
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

2012-10-22 Thread Mark Pulley
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

2012-10-22 Thread John Henderson

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

2012-10-21 Thread Nathan Van Der Meulen
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

2012-10-20 Thread dbannon

 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

2012-10-20 Thread Matt White

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

2012-10-20 Thread John Henderson

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

2012-10-20 Thread dbannon
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

2012-10-20 Thread dbannon
 
 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)

2012-10-20 Thread 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

2012-10-20 Thread John Henderson

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

2012-10-20 Thread Matt White

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

2012-10-20 Thread Ian Sergeant

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)

2012-10-20 Thread dbannon
 

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

2012-10-20 Thread dbannon
 

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

2012-10-20 Thread Ian Sergeant
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