Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 09/09/2009 12:05 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: > > yes, yes, yes - this is the most sane summary of the road/track debate > I've > > seen in quite a while. Of course, it also reopens the track/path > argument, > > but I'll leave that to others to battle out. > > How is there even an argument there? track is for cars and always has > been, while path is for not-cars and always has been. > > There's an ongoing thread on the newbies list about tracks and paths not rendering in the cyclemap layer. It's basically a rehash of the "code for accuracy, not for the renderer". The start of the thread is at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/2009-September/003522.html > -Alex Mauer “hawke” > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 09/09/2009 12:05 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: > > yes, yes, yes - this is the most sane summary of the road/track debate > I've > > seen in quite a while. Of course, it also reopens the track/path > argument, > > but I'll leave that to others to battle out. > > How is there even an argument there? track is for cars and always has > been, while path is for not-cars and always has been. > > -Alex Mauer “hawke” > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > yes, paths are non-motor vehicles. This is not to say it isn't possible to drive motor vehicles on it, just not designed for it or in common use. Basically only for servicing or emergences. I wasn't thinking about that one when I wrote the lase e-mail. As for tracks having addresses or names, I would probably push to use highway=unclasified instead of track. Or even rethink it as residential or service if they fit better and add other tags like surface to match reality. I added this to the bottom of the very long http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging for now. -- Dale Puch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/09/2009 12:05 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: > yes, yes, yes - this is the most sane summary of the road/track debate I've > seen in quite a while. Of course, it also reopens the track/path argument, > but I'll leave that to others to battle out. How is there even an argument there? track is for cars and always has been, while path is for not-cars and always has been. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/09/2009 11:59 AM, Dale Puch wrote: > highway= is for the type of road regardless of condition. A paved surface > is assumed unless otherwise stated. ...except for highway=track, (as you mention below) sure. > If it does not have a name (and thus no addresses), it should be a track. Tracks can be named and have addresses, though this is uncommon. > This would typically be a 1 lane (total) or possible wide enough for 2. > This probably assumes an unpaved surface by default. Yes. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
Paul, Thanks for the reminder about the US Tagging page, I forgot to add it to my watchlist in the wiki and it's definitely grown since my last read-through. Regarding the whole road vs. track vs. path debate, I think the only way of resolving the whole track/tracktype ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype) issue is to allow each country's mappers to decide how to deal with that particular tag. Since we're revisiting the issue at the moment, I'd like to propose re-opening the track and tracktype pages for RFC and create a US usage standard for both keys. Does anyone else feel like seconding this? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > dale wrote: > > I have been reading thru these posts and havn't seen a consensus/summary > > yet. In my view it should be reasonably straight forward based on the > tags > > we have. The point is to describe what is actually there. > > > > highway= is for the type of road regardless of condition. A paved > surface > > is assumed unless otherwise stated. > > If it does not have a name (and thus no addresses), it should be a > track. > > This would typically be a 1 lane (total) or possible wide enough for 2. > > This probably assumes an unpaved surface by default. > > > > See also Tracktype= for further track classification. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype > > > > Surface= is for describing the condition of the road when it does not > match > > the assumed default. Unpaved works but isn't that descriptive. Gravel, > > dirt ect. would be a better choice. > > > > Access= if it needs to be tagged private or other than full public > access. > > > > thank you for this summary. > > i think you'd be doing future versions of this thread a service > by somehow integrating this into the text at: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Other_Roads > which is similar, but slightly different, and certainly not as complete. > > (i'd do it, but i've already proved myself as unqualified to deal with > the true subtleties of tagging...) > > paul > > > If there are further situations that need to be tagged, we probably want > to > > either apply more tags to clarify the conditions, or better yet create a > new > > subset of tags for specific use. I'm thinking of someone wanting to > start > > tagging offroad trails for bikes, or 4wheel drive ect. I would think > > because of the narrowed focus of something like that it should be well > > separate from what most cars can drive. Sort of an oxymoron off-road > > roads :) > > > > And as usual if other applications do not use the tags right, we need to > > e-mail the authors and ask for a change to fit the tags. I'm sure they > > prefer that to digging in the wiki to see if someone started using > something > > new/different. > > > > -- > > Dale Puch > > part 2 text/plain 143 > > ___ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > =- > paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.3 > degrees) > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
dale wrote: > I have been reading thru these posts and havn't seen a consensus/summary > yet. In my view it should be reasonably straight forward based on the tags > we have. The point is to describe what is actually there. > > highway= is for the type of road regardless of condition. A paved surface > is assumed unless otherwise stated. > If it does not have a name (and thus no addresses), it should be a track. > This would typically be a 1 lane (total) or possible wide enough for 2. > This probably assumes an unpaved surface by default. > > See also Tracktype= for further track classification. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype > > Surface= is for describing the condition of the road when it does not match > the assumed default. Unpaved works but isn't that descriptive. Gravel, > dirt ect. would be a better choice. > > Access= if it needs to be tagged private or other than full public access. > thank you for this summary. i think you'd be doing future versions of this thread a service by somehow integrating this into the text at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Other_Roads which is similar, but slightly different, and certainly not as complete. (i'd do it, but i've already proved myself as unqualified to deal with the true subtleties of tagging...) paul > If there are further situations that need to be tagged, we probably want to > either apply more tags to clarify the conditions, or better yet create a new > subset of tags for specific use. I'm thinking of someone wanting to start > tagging offroad trails for bikes, or 4wheel drive ect. I would think > because of the narrowed focus of something like that it should be well > separate from what most cars can drive. Sort of an oxymoron off-road > roads :) > > And as usual if other applications do not use the tags right, we need to > e-mail the authors and ask for a change to fit the tags. I'm sure they > prefer that to digging in the wiki to see if someone started using something > new/different. > > -- > Dale Puch > part 2 text/plain 143 > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.3 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
yes, yes, yes - this is the most sane summary of the road/track debate I've seen in quite a while. Of course, it also reopens the track/path argument, but I'll leave that to others to battle out. On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > I have been reading thru these posts and havn't seen a consensus/summary > yet. In my view it should be reasonably straight forward based on the tags > we have. The point is to describe what is actually there. > > highway= is for the type of road regardless of condition. A paved surface > is assumed unless otherwise stated. > If it does not have a name (and thus no addresses), it should be a > track. This would typically be a 1 lane (total) or possible wide enough for > 2. This probably assumes an unpaved surface by default. > > See also Tracktype= for further track classification. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype > > Surface= is for describing the condition of the road when it does not match > the assumed default. Unpaved works but isn't that descriptive. Gravel, > dirt ect. would be a better choice. > > Access= if it needs to be tagged private or other than full public access. > > If there are further situations that need to be tagged, we probably want to > either apply more tags to clarify the conditions, or better yet create a new > subset of tags for specific use. I'm thinking of someone wanting to start > tagging offroad trails for bikes, or 4wheel drive ect. I would think > because of the narrowed focus of something like that it should be well > separate from what most cars can drive. Sort of an oxymoron off-road > roads :) > > And as usual if other applications do not use the tags right, we need to > e-mail the authors and ask for a change to fit the tags. I'm sure they > prefer that to digging in the wiki to see if someone started using something > new/different. > > -- > Dale Puch > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
I have been reading thru these posts and havn't seen a consensus/summary yet. In my view it should be reasonably straight forward based on the tags we have. The point is to describe what is actually there. highway= is for the type of road regardless of condition. A paved surface is assumed unless otherwise stated. If it does not have a name (and thus no addresses), it should be a track. This would typically be a 1 lane (total) or possible wide enough for 2. This probably assumes an unpaved surface by default. See also Tracktype= for further track classification. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype Surface= is for describing the condition of the road when it does not match the assumed default. Unpaved works but isn't that descriptive. Gravel, dirt ect. would be a better choice. Access= if it needs to be tagged private or other than full public access. If there are further situations that need to be tagged, we probably want to either apply more tags to clarify the conditions, or better yet create a new subset of tags for specific use. I'm thinking of someone wanting to start tagging offroad trails for bikes, or 4wheel drive ect. I would think because of the narrowed focus of something like that it should be well separate from what most cars can drive. Sort of an oxymoron off-road roads :) And as usual if other applications do not use the tags right, we need to e-mail the authors and ask for a change to fit the tags. I'm sure they prefer that to digging in the wiki to see if someone started using something new/different. -- Dale Puch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
richard wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Paul Fox wrote: > > let me ask a simplifying (for me) question. > > > > i want to encourage a group of motorcycling friends to help > > update OSM so that it accurately reflects road surface, for roads > > that are currently undifferentiated in that regard. the single > > most important thing that needs to be captured is whether the > > road is paved or not: this information is missing (or very > > incomplete) in every commercial US map that i've seen. > > I see why this is of great interest to motorcyclists. yes. some of us seek out unpaved roads, some avoid them. and we all simply want to know. :-) > > > is it ever wrong to simply add "surface=unpaved"? > > It is ideal, generous and very helpful to add surface=unpaved where > the data is missing. great. thanks! paul =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 61.5 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Paul Fox wrote: > let me ask a simplifying (for me) question. > > i want to encourage a group of motorcycling friends to help > update OSM so that it accurately reflects road surface, for roads > that are currently undifferentiated in that regard. the single > most important thing that needs to be captured is whether the > road is paved or not: this information is missing (or very > incomplete) in every commercial US map that i've seen. I see why this is of great interest to motorcyclists. > is it ever wrong to simply add "surface=unpaved"? It is ideal, generous and very helpful to add surface=unpaved where the data is missing. > and while it > might be also correct to switch to "highway=track", that's an > orthogonal change, right? Right. That is a separate and apparently endless discussion. ;-) > paul > p.s. i'll also be asking my friends to update for road > existence -- many roads from the Tiger set no longer exist in any > form, yet still exist in all the commercial (google, etc) data. Wonderful! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
let me ask a simplifying (for me) question. i want to encourage a group of motorcycling friends to help update OSM so that it accurately reflects road surface, for roads that are currently undifferentiated in that regard. the single most important thing that needs to be captured is whether the road is paved or not: this information is missing (or very incomplete) in every commercial US map that i've seen. is it ever wrong to simply add "surface=unpaved"? and while it might be also correct to switch to "highway=track", that's an orthogonal change, right? paul p.s. i'll also be asking my friends to update for road existence -- many roads from the Tiger set no longer exist in any form, yet still exist in all the commercial (google, etc) data. =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 59.0 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/08/2009 02:19 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > > and that > > most true dirt roads are unnamed. > > perhaps. but i'd say that's mostly only true if they're not > publicly accessible. any sort of public right-of-way usually > comes with at least a locally-assigned number: "Forest Route NN", > or "Fire Road NN", or "County Road NNN". in OSM that's ref=* not name=* > > And finally I would agree with you that regardless of their relative > > numbers, true dirt roads (not gravel) as described at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_road should indeed be highway=track. > > no, i don't agree. as greg troxel (i think) said earlier, the > term "track" implies a private right-of-way. That’s not correct, and is not what he said. He said, ”highway=track, on the other hand, seems definitely second-class ... if someone lives on a track, their address will be a value on the real road the track connects to.” While generally the case, this is not a defining characteristic of a track, and says nothing at all about whether it’s access=private. > there are many many > dirt roads in my travels that are better described > "highway=residential surface=unpaved", due both to their public nature, > and the presence of multiple residences. Then describe them as such (though surface=dirt might be better). But their public nature has nothing to do with it. We have access=* to describe that. was only saying that *in general*, gravel roads are not highway=track, while *in general* dirt roads are. It’s a rule of thumb, not an absolute. Obviously there are exceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DirtRoadCows.jpg should probably be highway=unclassified, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seymour_Logging_Road.JPG should probably be highway=track. -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 14:18 -0400, Paul Fox wrote: > alex wrote: > > On 09/06/2009 05:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question is a > > > gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because > > > > I would expect that this applies to at least the majority of named roads... > > > > i don't understand. "the majority of named roads" are, of > course, paved. i would say that the next most numerous are > simply dirt roads (at least here in new england, and in most of > the US that i've traveled). roads which are partly paved, or > which are "gravel over macadam" (i'm not entirely clear on what > that means) would be a small minority. Small minority of the ways, sure. Small minority of the mileage? Not by a long shot. Cities rarely account for the majority of the mileage in most parts of the world. Get to the western states and even ones with major urban centers like Oregon, Washington and Colorado easily have a vast majority of highway mileage as logging and farm track (with an overwhelming majority of these misidentified as residential even when they're verifiably dozens of miles from the nearest local resident, much less OSM volunteer). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
alex wrote: > On 09/08/2009 01:18 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > > alex wrote: > > > On 09/06/2009 05:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question > > is a > > > > gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because > > > > > > I would expect that this applies to at least the majority of named > > roads... > > > > i don't understand. "the majority of named roads" are, of > > course, paved. > > You're right there. I should have said "The majority of named roads > which are not paved with some form of concrete" > > > i would say that the next most numerous are > > simply dirt roads (at least here in new england, and in most of > > the US that i've traveled). roads which are partly paved, or > > which are "gravel over macadam" (i'm not entirely clear on what > > that means) would be a small minority. > > You can find more on macadam here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadam it was the "gravel over" part that i (still) don't understand. > I would consider a gravel-paved road > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road) to be not a highway=track in > OSM terms, in most cases. i agree. > Further, I would expect that gravel-paved roads are the most common of > non-concrete-paved (including asphalt concrete) named roads, not in my experience. > and that > most true dirt roads are unnamed. perhaps. but i'd say that's mostly only true if they're not publicly accessible. any sort of public right-of-way usually comes with at least a locally-assigned number: "Forest Route NN", or "Fire Road NN", or "County Road NNN". > And finally I would agree with you that regardless of their relative > numbers, true dirt roads (not gravel) as described at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_road should indeed be highway=track. no, i don't agree. as greg troxel (i think) said earlier, the term "track" implies a private right-of-way. there are many many dirt roads in my travels that are better described "highway=residential surface=unpaved", due both to their public nature, and the presence of multiple residences. paul =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 70.3 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/08/2009 01:18 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > alex wrote: > > On 09/06/2009 05:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question is a > > > gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because > > > > I would expect that this applies to at least the majority of named roads... > > > > i don't understand. "the majority of named roads" are, of > course, paved. You're right there. I should have said “The majority of named roads which are not paved with some form of concrete” > i would say that the next most numerous are > simply dirt roads (at least here in new england, and in most of > the US that i've traveled). roads which are partly paved, or > which are "gravel over macadam" (i'm not entirely clear on what > that means) would be a small minority. You can find more on macadam here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadam I would consider a gravel-paved road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road) to be not a highway=track in OSM terms, in most cases. Further, I would expect that gravel-paved roads are the most common of non-concrete-paved (including asphalt concrete) named roads, and that most true dirt roads are unnamed. And finally I would agree with you that regardless of their relative numbers, true dirt roads (not gravel) as described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_road should indeed be highway=track. -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
alex wrote: > On 09/06/2009 05:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question is a > > gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because > > I would expect that this applies to at least the majority of named roads... > i don't understand. "the majority of named roads" are, of course, paved. i would say that the next most numerous are simply dirt roads (at least here in new england, and in most of the US that i've traveled). roads which are partly paved, or which are "gravel over macadam" (i'm not entirely clear on what that means) would be a small minority. paul =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 69.4 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/06/2009 05:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question is a > gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because I would expect that this applies to at least the majority of named roads... > most routing engines and all renderers at this point are more likely to > use the highway tag to determine and render such objects correctly. “Tagging for the renderer” is generally discouraged. It's probably a better idea to tag what's actually on the ground, and put in a trac ticket if you feel that it should be rendered differently. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 11:40 -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > I think people most > tag according to importance anyway. > this brings us to the topic of tiger import again. there are too many > roads tagged as residential. Agreed. You'd think after people complaining after the first one, the availability of the generic highway=road and the fact TIGER calls everything it can't identify as a residential street regardless of real status would have been some clues not to make the same mistake twice. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
full support for all your arguments. there are a few places where the wiki is different and I think we should change these definitions. 1) National Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Power Administration, and Bureau of Land Management routes . highway (required) track or tertiary depending on unpaved or paved respectively. this should be changed to track,tertiary,service,unclassified depending on the class and importance of the road the main wiki for highway was updated recently too and United_States_roads_tagging page should follow. I think people most tag according to importance anyway. this brings us to the topic of tiger import again. there are too many roads tagged as residential. We should try to find a way to identify all residential roads without any address and downgrade. not sure if tiger data contains some attributes to make this possible. on a smaller scale roads in national parks, forests, other park areas are never residential with very few exceptions. changing them can be done easily by any mapper. highest tag for unnamed roads should be service and in a lot of cases only track. If others agree we should put it on the tiger cleanup pages. not everyone is subscribed to the talk list. On 7 Sep 2009, at 6:41 , Greg Troxel wrote: > Paul Johnson writes: > >> OK, but can you drive them in a PT Cruiser Touring Edition, a Porche >> 911, or some other low-slung, stiff-suspension vehicle on it without >> problems? How about a road bicycle (which absolutely depends on >> pavement)? Probably not going to be happening. > > Yes, you'd be ok in those on some roads, and of course not on some. > > But 'residential' isn't about road quality, it's about whether a > road is > a "public way" or "private way" vs. something that happens to exist > in a > farm, forest, or some other sub-legal-road setting. > > In Massachusetts, roads (and private ways, but not driveways or farm > tracks) are separate lots on assessor's plots and the at the > registry of > deeds. > > At > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway > > track says: > > Roads for agricultural use, gravel roads in the forest etc.; usually > unpaved/unsealed but may occasionally apply to paved tracks as > well, see > tracktype=* for more guidance. > > > Most proprietary maps I've seen show only what I'd call > highway=residential and up. Driveways and tracks in forests are > omitted. I think that's because they are car navigation centric, and > also because of the legal classification of roads. > > > > I think the real problem here is that different people want to attach > different semantics to tags, but we have nonorthogonal tags. For > roads, > there are two mostly orthogonal concerns: > > legal status > > physical condition > > I am arguing that highway=residential speaks to legal status but > doesn't > say much about physical condition, and that physical condition tags > are > needed. If I understand you correctly, you would label a track an > unpaved road that is a distinct parcel owned by the town, has a name, > houses with numbers and addresses on that road (and appears as a > road on > most other maps). I see there is some support for this notion at > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging > > and wonder if it is new - I don't remember seeing that on my previous > reading, and I don't think it's the right thing to do. My wiki-fu is > too weak to do 'svn blame' on the source... > > > Separately, we need an equivalent tag to residential for roads that > are > less than unclassified but don't meet the residential notion. > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> There are streets in my town (Stow, MA) that are definitely not paved >> that I have driven on with a Saturn SC2 and not had a problem. > > OK, but can you drive them in a PT Cruiser Touring Edition, a Porche > 911, or some other low-slung, stiff-suspension vehicle on it without > problems? Safer there than primary streets in Boston. A friend lost money on every test drive when rebuilding Lotus Europa cars Boston as he had to replace at least one strut. Between utility dig crews' bad patches and Jack Frost's po-tholes and frost heaves, our paved streets are often in worse condition than unpaved -- which can be much more cheaply resurfaced in the spring with a grader. However the Condition=Intolerable on Greg's Stowe streets sounds like they've not been regraded and while there may be clearance for a Porsche or Lotus (not so rutted at to be two wheel tracks), it might be as hazardous for the sporty stiff suspension and decorative hubcaps as my city streets. Surface=gravel would be a data improvement to much of the tiger imports in my original hometown upcountry in Maine, but I've heard some of the winterized cottage neighborhoods have been paved in the last few decades, either being converted from private to public ownership or by subscription. Alas the cost to pave the one that would improve the value of the backside of Dad's woods far exceeds the value he'd gain. -- Bill in Boston n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
Paul Johnson writes: > OK, but can you drive them in a PT Cruiser Touring Edition, a Porche > 911, or some other low-slung, stiff-suspension vehicle on it without > problems? How about a road bicycle (which absolutely depends on > pavement)? Probably not going to be happening. Yes, you'd be ok in those on some roads, and of course not on some. But 'residential' isn't about road quality, it's about whether a road is a "public way" or "private way" vs. something that happens to exist in a farm, forest, or some other sub-legal-road setting. In Massachusetts, roads (and private ways, but not driveways or farm tracks) are separate lots on assessor's plots and the at the registry of deeds. At http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway track says: Roads for agricultural use, gravel roads in the forest etc.; usually unpaved/unsealed but may occasionally apply to paved tracks as well, see tracktype=* for more guidance. Most proprietary maps I've seen show only what I'd call highway=residential and up. Driveways and tracks in forests are omitted. I think that's because they are car navigation centric, and also because of the legal classification of roads. I think the real problem here is that different people want to attach different semantics to tags, but we have nonorthogonal tags. For roads, there are two mostly orthogonal concerns: legal status physical condition I am arguing that highway=residential speaks to legal status but doesn't say much about physical condition, and that physical condition tags are needed. If I understand you correctly, you would label a track an unpaved road that is a distinct parcel owned by the town, has a name, houses with numbers and addresses on that road (and appears as a road on most other maps). I see there is some support for this notion at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging and wonder if it is new - I don't remember seeing that on my previous reading, and I don't think it's the right thing to do. My wiki-fu is too weak to do 'svn blame' on the source... Separately, we need an equivalent tag to residential for roads that are less than unclassified but don't meet the residential notion. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
Hi Paul and Greg and talk-us, Your points regarding tagging of gravel roads, highway vs. path vs. trail, and vehicle choice are points that come up in the OSM community from time to time. For further discussion and to see how previous discussions have resolved, consider looking up the discussion on the smoothness tag, the thread on track vs. path on the talk-list, and the very excellent presentation from SotM by Peter Miller called Community Smoothness. In many cases these issues boil down to a couple of points. First, a map is an abstraction and can never reflect all of reality in pristine perfection. Second, we as mappers can't be expert in all of the ways to map all of the wide world. Third, we can not predict all of the ways our data will be used by the present and future users of OSM. Having One True Way to map each thing makes no sense because it fails to consider context. And context changes, sometimes drastically, depending on location. So while you are discussing specific roads in Massachusetts and Oregon, and finding the things are a bit different for each of you, imagine how your argument applies to roads at McMurdo Station on Antarctica or in a rain forest, or on a desert? Things are Just Too Different. So we as a community have to trust ourselves. We have to trust our local experts. We have to grow more local experts by having these conversations and improving how we tag things in the local context and in the wider context. And in some ways we have to Just Do Our Best. It won't always be perfect and that is okay. There is a history in OSM of saying that if you tag it to reflect the reality on the ground, then that is okay. Even if it is unusual. So if highway=residential; surface=gravel/unpaved/unsurfaced makes sense? Use it. If highway=track; track_type=2 makes sense? Use it! And don't let anybody tell you that you are wrong, just because they wouldn't do it that way. So, by all means, continue the discussion. You may both be right. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:49 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > Paul Johnson writes: > > > On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 07:30 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > >> It depends on what the road is like. If it's a decent dirt road that > >> normal cars routinely drive on, has a street name, is considered a > >> public or private way by the town, then it's highway=residential > >> surface=unpaved. > >> > >> If when driving on it in a car you wince and wish you had a 4WD truck, > >> it doesn't a name, and it isn't recognized as a 'real road', it might be > >> highway=track. > > > > How are you coming to that conclusion, anyway? Also, show me an unpaved > > residential street in the western US that you didn't wish you had a 4WD > > for, and I'll show you a street that really is paved, but hasn't been > > swept or had rain wash the dirt off all summer. > > There are streets in my town (Stow, MA) that are definitely not paved > that I have driven on with a Saturn SC2 and not had a problem. OK, but can you drive them in a PT Cruiser Touring Edition, a Porche 911, or some other low-slung, stiff-suspension vehicle on it without problems? How about a road bicycle (which absolutely depends on pavement)? Probably not going to be happening. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:12 -0700, Dion Dock wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> In my neighborhood there are some unpaved residential streets. How > >> should those be tagged? > >> > >> highway=track > >> > >> highway=residential > >> surface=unpaved > > > > I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question > > is a > > gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because > > most routing engines and all renderers at this point are more likely > > to > > use the highway tag to determine and render such objects correctly. > > Mapnik renders highway=unsurfaced. That seems like a pretty good sign > it's a common tag, even if the OSM wiki doesn't include it. > > I think this makes a lot of sense, as I've never seen an arterial that > was gravel. I have. County roads are very rarely paved outside urban counties in Oregon. There was also an approximately 8 month span when the Beaverton-Tigard Freeway was a four-lane, center-divided gravel road thanks to a failed experiment at resurfacing the freeway with recycled shoes instead of asphault (thank Nike for that idea...). It's safe to assume this is a common problem in countries that can't afford to maintain infrastructure (such as most of Africa, much of southern Asia, and demonstrably the US what with the above mentioned gravel freeway incident and collapsing freeway bridges every couple years as long as I've been alive). > I view the surface= tag as being more descriptive of the > highway= value. For example, if the road is unsurfaced (which to me > means gravel), I might want to know how big the gravel is or whether > it is more dirt than gravel. > > I view highway=track to mean dirt roads with no gravel (e.g. 4wd roads). That would be a track grade 1, 2 or 3. Smooth gravel surface that you're capable of taking any car including something low to the ground like a PT Cruiser at trunk speeds on would be a 5. Track by itself just means "it's not paved." signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
> >> Hello, >> >> In my neighborhood there are some unpaved residential streets. How >> should those be tagged? >> >> highway=track >> >> highway=residential >> surface=unpaved > > I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question > is a > gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because > most routing engines and all renderers at this point are more likely > to > use the highway tag to determine and render such objects correctly. Mapnik renders highway=unsurfaced. That seems like a pretty good sign it's a common tag, even if the OSM wiki doesn't include it. I think this makes a lot of sense, as I've never seen an arterial that was gravel. I view the surface= tag as being more descriptive of the highway= value. For example, if the road is unsurfaced (which to me means gravel), I might want to know how big the gravel is or whether it is more dirt than gravel. I view highway=track to mean dirt roads with no gravel (e.g. 4wd roads). -Dion ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
Paul Johnson writes: > On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 07:30 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> It depends on what the road is like. If it's a decent dirt road that >> normal cars routinely drive on, has a street name, is considered a >> public or private way by the town, then it's highway=residential >> surface=unpaved. >> >> If when driving on it in a car you wince and wish you had a 4WD truck, >> it doesn't a name, and it isn't recognized as a 'real road', it might be >> highway=track. > > How are you coming to that conclusion, anyway? Also, show me an unpaved > residential street in the western US that you didn't wish you had a 4WD > for, and I'll show you a street that really is paved, but hasn't been > swept or had rain wash the dirt off all summer. Also, my point is that "highway=residential surface=unpaved" implies a very different legal status (a bit like "public right of way" in the UK), and connotes 'real road'. highway=track, on the other hand, seems definitely second-class, as in farm or logging road that doesn't have legal status. In other words, highway=residential surface=unpaved is a road that can have an address of someone's house. if someone lives on a track, their address will be a value on the real road the track connects to. Here is a Mass example (Kingland Road): http://osm.org/go/ZfIYetHlg-?layers=B000FTTT A western example: http://osm.org/go/t...@alk--?layers=b000fttt Mormon Row is highway=unclassified, surface=gravel. I drove this in a nissan versa and that seems quite reasonable. Do you think a road having legal status is important in deciding between the two alternatives in question? If not, please explain why not. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
-- Greg Troxel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
Paul Johnson writes: > On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 07:30 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> It depends on what the road is like. If it's a decent dirt road that >> normal cars routinely drive on, has a street name, is considered a >> public or private way by the town, then it's highway=residential >> surface=unpaved. >> >> If when driving on it in a car you wince and wish you had a 4WD truck, >> it doesn't a name, and it isn't recognized as a 'real road', it might be >> highway=track. > > How are you coming to that conclusion, anyway? Also, show me an unpaved > residential street in the western US that you didn't wish you had a 4WD > for, and I'll show you a street that really is paved, but hasn't been > swept or had rain wash the dirt off all summer. There are streets in my town (Stow, MA) that are definitely not paved that I have driven on with a Saturn SC2 and not had a problem. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 13:44 -0500, Ian Dees wrote: > Ok, how about this: implied tags should be the exception, not the > rule. OK, you can get right on going over every one way street and explicitly listing the turn restriction relations on every intersection, even though they're already implied by ways with oneway=yes tags. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 07:30 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > It depends on what the road is like. If it's a decent dirt road that > normal cars routinely drive on, has a street name, is considered a > public or private way by the town, then it's highway=residential > surface=unpaved. > > If when driving on it in a car you wince and wish you had a 4WD truck, > it doesn't a name, and it isn't recognized as a 'real road', it might be > highway=track. How are you coming to that conclusion, anyway? Also, show me an unpaved residential street in the western US that you didn't wish you had a 4WD for, and I'll show you a street that really is paved, but hasn't been swept or had rain wash the dirt off all summer. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 10:13 -0400, Nakor wrote: > Hello, > > In my neighborhood there are some unpaved residential streets. How > should those be tagged? > > highway=track > > highway=residential > surface=unpaved I would tend to go with highway=track unless the street in question is a gravelled over macadam or some other semi-paved surface mostly because most routing engines and all renderers at this point are more likely to use the highway tag to determine and render such objects correctly. > BTW does highway=residential imply surface=paved? Yes, unless otherwise stated. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
Nakor writes: > In my neighborhood there are some unpaved residential streets. How should > those be tagged? > > highway=track > > highway=residential > surface=unpaved It depends on what the road is like. If it's a decent dirt road that normal cars routinely drive on, has a street name, is considered a public or private way by the town, then it's highway=residential surface=unpaved. If when driving on it in a car you wince and wish you had a 4WD truck, it doesn't a name, and it isn't recognized as a 'real road', it might be highway=track. > BTW does highway=residential imply surface=paved? My impression is that the default value for surface given highway=residential is paved. Some people don't like the default bit, but IMHO the real issue is to document the rules. pgpB1Qm8HOouo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 09/03/2009 09:17 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > > No tag should ever imply any other tag. It's always better to be more > > verbose than not. > > No it's not. Are you seriously putting oneway=no (just to name one > example) on every street you tag? Dangit, someone (probably you, Alex :) ) made this point before. You're right ... but I don't think of oneway=no as an implied tag. I would call it the default for all road ways... which I guess is an implied tag. Ok, how about this: implied tags should be the exception, not the rule. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On 09/03/2009 09:17 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > No tag should ever imply any other tag. It's always better to be more > verbose than not. No it's not. Are you seriously putting oneway=no (just to name one example) on every street you tag? -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
ian wrote: > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Nakor wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > In my neighborhood there are some unpaved residential streets. How should > > those be tagged? > > > > highway=track > > > > highway=residential > > surface=unpaved > > > > That's how I've been doing it. > do you have a way of rendering those unpaved streets distinctively? paul =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 61.7 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Nakor wrote: > Hello, > > In my neighborhood there are some unpaved residential streets. How should > those be tagged? > > highway=track > > highway=residential > surface=unpaved > That's how I've been doing it. > > BTW does highway=residential imply surface=paved? > > No tag should ever imply any other tag. It's always better to be more verbose than not. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Unpaved streets
Hello, In my neighborhood there are some unpaved residential streets. How should those be tagged? highway=track highway=residential surface=unpaved BTW does highway=residential imply surface=paved? Thanks in advance, N. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
