Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 12.02.2011 20:21, Jo wrote: That sounds like a lot of fun! Although I don't think since it'll very efficient, since somebody will have to walk beside it, wouldn't it? I do map on horseback though and that's a lot of fun too. I guess they won't let you alone with the Elephant without proper t

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

> If you insist on doing the mapping from elephant back, feel free to do so. > Lampang has a lot of white area on the map left for you to map. > I can organize you an elephant. That sounds like a lot of fun! Although I don't think since it'll very efficient, since somebody will have to walk beside

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 12.02.2011 18:54, SteveC wrote: I want to go to that mapping party. On Jan 21, 2011, at 17:59, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map by snake charming while riding on elephant back? Feel free to join on 26th March. http://wiki.openstreetm

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: > Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call > something that wasn't surfaced a road. Appologies if I'm repeating something that's already been said – I've only just joined the list, but what's inappropriate about high

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

I want to go to that mapping party. Steve stevecoast.com On Jan 21, 2011, at 17:59, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: >>> Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call >>> something that wasn't surfaced a road. >> >> Unless t

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

20:45 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: >> > Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call >> > something that wasn't surfaced a road. >> >> Unless they

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

> On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: >> > Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call >> > something that wasn't surfaced a road. >> >> Unless they were expatriates in a third-world country? > > please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote: > > Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call > > something that wasn't surfaced a road. > > Unless they were expatriates in a third-world country? please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map by snak

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 10/01/2011 19:47, Tom Hughes wrote: On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? Nothing official, but it would b

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 01/12/2011 11:39 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >> Which I suppose is one of my main questions.  If a way is tagged with >> highway=road, and nothing else, should a router route motor vehicle >> traffic down it?  I would think the answer is yes, which

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

Am 12.01.2011 20:36, schrieb Alex Mauer: So at best it could be routed with strong “use at your own risk” warnings. But in general it’s probably best if routers do not send people down them. It would be great to have an "OSM-Navi" giving the user the choice: - fastest - shortest - most helpf

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 01/12/2011 11:39 AM, Anthony wrote: Which I suppose is one of my main questions. If a way is tagged with highway=road, and nothing else, should a router route motor vehicle traffic down it? I would think the answer is yes, which means that paths which are not meant for motor vehicle traffic

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Anthony wrote: > Me too, although I can't really figure out what it is supposed to say. >  I suspect "a path where motor vehicles travel" is the about closest > to the de facto definition, as I suspect that most roads where motor > vehicles are allowed to travel a

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:18 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/1/12 Anthony : >> As I said, highway=road is not defined as "unknown classification", it >> is defined as "a road of unknown classification". > > > IMHO that's just a bad definition, because if you don't know the way, > how could

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

2011/1/12 Anthony : > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:59 PM, David Murn wrote >> You seem to keep getting mixed up between the UK understanding of the >> word 'road' and the OSM context of the meaning of highway=road.  As you >> can read (quoted) in my original email, highway=road means "unknown >> clas

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

>A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced >than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix >200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the >cop-out of highway=road) if someone creates a rendering to highlight where

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:59 PM, David Murn wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:39 -0500, Anthony wrote: > >> > So, while 'road' may mean a tarred bit of bitumen in the UK, and it >> > means something passable by a vehicle in Australia, in the OSM context >> > it means an unknown classification, tem

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:39 -0500, Anthony wrote: > > So, while 'road' may mean a tarred bit of bitumen in the UK, and it > > means something passable by a vehicle in Australia, in the OSM context > > it means an unknown classification, temporarily tagged until the > > required re-survey is comple

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:54 PM, David Murn wrote:> > Well, I dunno/care about what the definition is in every state, but the > definition of highway=road in the OSM wiki (since I believe we're all > talking about OSM here, and not some other localised schema): > > >From highway=road: >> A road of

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

2011/1/11 Anthony : > The more important question is what the tag means.  Or is highway=road > a tag which has a different definition in every state? highway=road is a way that seemed to be OK for travelling in an aerial photo, it can be all kinds of OSM-highways. cheers, Martin ___

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 23:01 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > David Murn wrote: > > Now, maybe Im off the mark here, but it > > sounds like that is *EXACTLY* the outcome we want when mass changing > > tags, > > We are not going to mass-change tags. 'we' being who? Are you speaking on behal

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 12 January 2011 08:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > David Murn wrote: >> >> Now, maybe Im off the mark here, but it >> sounds like that is *EXACTLY* the outcome we want when mass changing >> tags, > > We are not going to mass-change tags. If the reason is good enough, eg the flow control thr

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

Hi, David Murn wrote: Now, maybe Im off the mark here, but it sounds like that is *EXACTLY* the outcome we want when mass changing tags, We are not going to mass-change tags. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" __

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 10:13 -0500, Anthony wrote: > > Sure, but if you read you will notice that I was specifically answering > > a question about what that would be called in the UK, not what it would > > be called in Australia. > > The more important question is what the tag means. Or is highwa

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

FWIW I've now replaced several occurrences of highway=unsurfaced in the UK (thanks to Steve's very timely rendering), starting in areas I know personally (West Oxfordshire and Rutland), and not a single one would be described as a road in the UK. I added some several years ago. I've changed some

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 10/01/2011 18:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix 200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the cop-out of highway=road) if so

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 11/01/11 11:05, David Murn wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:47 +, Tom Hughes wrote: >>> On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: >>> American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road.

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 11/01/11 11:05, David Murn wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:47 +, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: >> >>> American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very >>> high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum >>>

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

David Murn wrote: > Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern > Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia. > Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the > western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions. Just goes to show the

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:47 +, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: > > > American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very > > high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum > > standards for being called a road? > >

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

[OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced Alex Mauer wrote: > Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on > the wiki[1] clearly shows a road > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg I think if you described that as a "ro

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

Anthony writes: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: >> >> Alex Mauer wrote: >>> Which one were you thinking of?  I count two road types in your list: >>> highway=track and highway=unclassified.  And it could be other highway=* >>> types too. >> >> highway=track doesn'

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call s

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very high-quality road. I take it that, in Britain, there are certain minimum standards for being called a road? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced >From :mailto:rich...@systemed.net Date :

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

Alex Mauer wrote: > Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on > the wiki[1] clearly shows a road > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg I think if you described that as a "road" in the UK you'd have the Trades Descript

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 01/10/2011 11:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV. Sounds like

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Alex Mauer wrote: >> Which one were you thinking of?  I count two road types in your list: >> highway=track and highway=unclassified.  And it could be other highway=* >> types too. > > highway=track doesn't imply a road round here Is

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

Alex Mauer wrote: > Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: > highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* > types too. highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV. > It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 01/09/2011 12:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: No. highway=unsurfaced could be what's now commonly tagged as highway=track, or highway=unclassified, or highway=bridleway. Only one of those three is a road. Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track an

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 09/01/2011 20:17, Dave F. wrote: On 09/01/2011 16:28, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Hi Today there is >5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced... Whilst the surface condition should be a sub-tag (surface=*), you unfortunately don't know what the actual road classification is, so it's inadvisable to d

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: > Today there is >5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced  (Taginfo). They seem to > be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciated almost three years ago. > > I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking The sense I ge

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 09/01/2011 16:28, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Hi Today there is >5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced... Whilst the surface condition should be a sub-tag (surface=*), you unfortunately don't know what the actual road classification is, so it's inadvisable to do a mass change. Does anyone know i

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:28:14 +0100 "Gorm E. Johnsen" wrote: > I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking > highway=road + surface=unpaved. > > Do you agree that we should replace highway=unsurfaced? If not, > please write a few words why you don't think we should. Please

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

"They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciated < http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features> almost three years ago." I am mapping Aruba, most unpaved roads there are currently set to highway=track, and there is a lot of them. I will check Aruba for "deprecated" fe

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

to the region. So, no one set of assumptions will fit the entire world. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced >From :mailto:rich...@systemed.net Date :Sun Jan 09 12:01:11 America/Chicago 2011 Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: > They seem to be evenly spread ov

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On 09/01/11 16:28, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Hi Today there is >5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced (Taginfo ). They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciated almos

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: > They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was > depreciated > almost three years ago. "Depreciated" means "reduced in value". You mean "deprecated", but you can only deprecate a feature from the wiki docs, no

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

2011/1/9 Pieren : > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >>  highway=unclassified >>  surface=unpaved >>  note=review:was-highway-unsurfaced >> > > "unclassified" + "surface" is probably correct for most of the cases. But it > sounds more cautious to replace it by "highway=road" +

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > highway=unclassified > surface=unpaved > note=review:was-highway-unsurfaced > > "unclassified" + "surface" is probably correct for most of the cases. But it sounds more cautious to replace it by "highway=road" + "note=deprecates highway=unsu

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

I would think the intent of original taggers is that highway=unsurfaced was that they were "real roads" that aren't paved vs tracks. So I'd map highway=unsurfaced to highway=unclassified surface=unpaved note=review:was-highway-unsurfaced or something like that. Have you looked at a

[OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

Hi Today there is >5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced (Taginfo). They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciatedalmost three years ago. I would like to replace them wi