Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think agricultural use is necessary for track. but the wiki does (for years if not since ever). Or alternatively similar uses (forestry, fishing). The wiki also admits that tracks can be paved which is unnecesary for agricultural and/or forestry uses only. We have to accept mixed uses as well. What is ofter ommited in this discussion is the tag tracktype=grade1..5 which was created almost at the same time as the highway=track. It is perhaps not perfect and the pictures used as examples cannot be generalized, but it existed before surface and smoothness tags which have their own defaults (smoothness may vary on weather conditions and is subjective, surface may change often on short distances, etc). A highway=track + tracktype=grade1 can be safely used by normal cars. Perhaps in Germany, all tracks have limited access. But they all have traffic signs indicating the restriction(s). If the tag access is missing, we cannot assume that the mapper forgot the restriction ! What is true in Germany can be wrong in many other countries. Excepted if we admit that OSRM is a German centric routing engine. Interesting in the wiki is the big difference between european countries about the default access on tracks: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions So, depending where you leave, the default behaviour on OSRM (or any similar routing engine) might completly correct or wrong. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Pieren wrote: Perhaps in Germany, all tracks have limited access. But they all have traffic signs indicating the restriction(s). If the tag access is missing, we cannot assume that the mapper forgot the restriction ! What is true in Germany can be wrong in many other countries. Excepted if we admit that OSRM is a German centric routing engine. Yes - another item on my TODO list is to get the routing actually using the 'minor roads' around here. It takes me on a 3 mile detour to get over to the motorway ... so I just ignore it until it's caught up :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
2013/8/26 Pieren pier...@gmail.com A highway=track + tracktype=grade1 can be safely used by normal cars. technically yes, legally it depends Perhaps in Germany, all tracks have limited access. no, it depends on the area. In some regions it is true (AFAIK only in Baden-Württemberg = BaWü) But they all have traffic signs indicating the restriction(s). no, apparently in BaWü there is a general restriction which doesn't have to be signposted. But I think this direction of discussion misses the point. The point was how to classify certain types of roads (unpaved connection and residential roads). tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural (i.e. local traffic of who works in the fields or forests or goes fishing) traffic. If there are other reasons for a road to be (i.e. connection for ordinary traffic, access to a plant or other technical installation) the highway class should be chosen differently. A residential road can well be unpaved in some parts of Germany as well, but that doesn't make it a track. In remote zones in Italy there are provincial roads (i.e. roads of the network maintained by the provinces) that aren't paved and are so narrow that 2 cars only at some spots can pass, but that doesn't make them a track. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 2013-08-26 14:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural (i.e. local traffic of who works in the fields or forests or goes fishing) traffic. How do you know that without any signs next to the road? Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: But I think this direction of discussion misses the point. The point was how to classify certain types of roads (unpaved connection and residential roads). tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural (i.e. local traffic of who works in the fields or forests or goes fishing) traffic. If there are other reasons for a road to be (i.e. connection for ordinary traffic, access to a plant or other technical installation) the highway class should be chosen differently. A residential road can well be unpaved in some parts of Germany as well, but that doesn't make it a track. In remote zones in Italy there are provincial roads (i.e. roads of the network maintained by the provinces) that aren't paved and are so narrow that 2 cars only at some spots can pass, but that doesn't make them a track. This was part of the discussion on tracks and paths at the time. My own reason for wanting to distinguish what I will call 'unclassified' which do not have a tidy surface or are 'residential' or 'service' which require care is that there should be a clear demarcation between roads that are generally safe to pass and those which may not be appropriate in some circumstances. Personally I was caught out with an older satnav showing no change when going from a main A road to what was essentially a 'dirt track' ( at that time not even a colour change ) ... it was still a perfectly legal road and there were warnings about single track with passing places, but I might have preferred to re-route if I was towing and I was already committed by the time the signage appeared. I think the real point is passing on the information that while a road may be part of the normal transport network, some may be less than suitable in some circumstances! Simply tagging 'unclassified' and merging with roads which are simply unmaintained by the local council while valid does not easily pass on important information while personally I feel these are 'tracks' and need to be tagged as such! It is different rendering that is the point here ... and iD is making this even more problematic by rendering everything with very similar styles even for footpaths! ( And this discussion should probably be on the tagging list, but I've still not added that to my catalogue ) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
2013/8/26 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl On 2013-08-26 14:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural (i.e. local traffic of who works in the fields or forests or goes fishing) traffic. How do you know that without any signs next to the road? the relevant passage is § 3 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 of Straßengesetz für Baden-Württemberg and various comments I found all point out that despite usually there will be signs the restriction will also be valid in absence of signs. My guess is you will have to know by common sense. I agree that this is not completely satisfactory. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
2013/8/26 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk This was part of the discussion on tracks and paths at the time. AFAIK that distinction was always made by width (or width for the access-points, e.g. if they are blocked by boulders you won't be able to go there by car anyway) My own reason for wanting to distinguish what I will call 'unclassified' which do not have a tidy surface or are 'residential' or 'service' which require care is that there should be a clear demarcation between roads that are generally safe to pass and those which may not be appropriate in some circumstances. many roads in Europe might not be safe to pass in the winter time (or some might not be safe to pass in the summer time, see winter road discussion from the Russians). This doesn't make them less public roads Personally I was caught out with an older satnav showing no change when going from a main A road to what was essentially a 'dirt track' ( at that time not even a colour change ) ... it was still a perfectly legal road and there were warnings about single track with passing places, but I might have preferred to re-route if I was towing and I was already committed by the time the signage appeared. I think the real point is passing on the information that while a road may be part of the normal transport network, some may be less than suitable in some circumstances! yes, but there are other tags to use than the highway class that can express in greater detail what might be the problem (e.g. surface, width, smoothness, lanes, ...) Simply tagging 'unclassified' and merging with roads which are simply unmaintained by the local council while valid does not easily pass on important information while personally I feel these are 'tracks' and need to be tagged as such! what about adding unmaintained=yes? It is different rendering that is the point here yes and no. Yes, the rendering should preferably distinguish between paved and unpaved roads, and no, the highway class should not be chosen by the rendering rules of a certain style. ( And this discussion should probably be on the tagging list, but I've still not added that to my catalogue ) +1, crossposted to tagging, please lets continue there cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 2013-08-26 15:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/8/26 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl On 2013-08-26 14:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural (i.e. local traffic of who works in the fields or forests or goes fishing) traffic. How do you know that without any signs next to the road? the relevant passage is § 3 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 of Straßengesetz für Baden-Württemberg and various comments I found all point out that despite usually there will be signs the restriction will also be valid in absence of signs. My guess is you will have to know by common sense. I agree that this is not completely satisfactory. I was more referring to other places (in Germany and beyond). I have retagged some highway=track+tracktype=grade1 (sometimes +surface=asphalt) in Germany to highway=unclassified because I saw no reason why a normally paved road would be called a track. Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com writes: Track is used more and more for unpaved roads. Mapnik and other renderers are probably a big reason, because they don't render Surfacehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surfaceand Smoothness http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness tags. I really don't know of any renderers that show these tags. I hope the new openstreetmap-carto stylesheet will speed up fixing this problem. This is a good argument for enhancing the rendering to show roads that are other than paved somehow. A track is totally different from an unpaved road. In particular, a 'highway=unclassified surface=dirt' is (around my area) legally a road, no different than if it were paved, and almost always is a separate parcel in the sense of land ownership. A track is almost never legally a road, rarely has a public right of access, but just a place you could physically drive, and is very rarely a separate parcel. The track/unpaved confusion is also present in at least some mkgmap style sheets. I agree that it's very important for many map users to know about paved vs not-paved, at least in places where there are both kinds. pgpXfmJ0fTUoZ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Pieren pier...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: BTW osrm.at is helping in this campaign, because it doesn't route through tracks BTW I just discover that some people are tagging for routing (after tagging for the renderer). They add access=yes or motor_vehicle=yes to open the routable track in OSRM... If the public really has a legal right of access, similar to a road, then access=yes sounds entirely fair. Around me, almost all tracks are either on private land (e.g, for agricultural use), where there is no right of access, or are in conservation land, wildlife management areas, etc., and are there for emergency access, maintenance, etc. and typically blocked from motor vehicle use by locked gates. But, typically pedestrian/bicyclists/horses are allowed. If orsm is defaulting to access=private for vehicle routing for tracks with no access tag, that does not sound unreasonable. pgpVnwmFqKSP5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com writes: So, how would you classify a one-lane road leading through a former field, now overgrown with 30 years or so of bushes and saplings, leading to a billboard adjoining a motorway? The only improvements the road receives is to be mowed periodically to keep it passable, and its only use is by crews periodically changing what is displayed on the billboard. This hardly qualifies as agricultural use, but I tagged it as a track because it is too rudimentary to qualify as anything else. I'd call it track, if you need a something kind of like a 4WD truck to get there, and service if a regular car would work ok on any random day you show up. I don't think agricultural use is necessary for track. It's more not a real road, not really usable by regular cars. service vs track is actually not a big deal, because unlike highway=unclassified/residential (and higher), highway=service does not have an implication that the public has a right of use. I would implicitly treat highway=service as having access=destination if it has no access tags, and highway=track I would assume access=private. Probably the semantics of default access values needs to be more clearly defined. pgpyn3SpVyzXx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
2013/8/25 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com I don't think agricultural use is necessary for track. but the wiki does (for years if not since ever). Or alternatively similar uses (forestry, fishing). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 02:05:51AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: No footpaths, lights, tarmac or road markings but freely available to drive along. I have been to African countrys where even primarys dont have lights, tarmac or road markings - still they are primary roads, officially on the maps. Classification of roads only mean something to their appearence in local context. This is the reason there is no highway=unpaved - It might be a long distance primary or a service road. This would make a huge difference in routing preference. Classification e.g. highway= is meant to be used for routing preferences, whereas additional tags may describe the physical representation of the road. That this is not yet visually shown in the maps is bad luck but no reason to abuse the track. It's a track ... but the current definition prevents it's use. Adding other tags to 'service' is wrong as well as its servicing anywhere, and unclassified has a similar incongruity. Many of them have been at least hardcored, but even then 'road' just seems too grand a title for a track. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Your link was intersting until yesterday: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/187654937 What's informationfreeway.org rendering rule applied there? Yves On 08/24/2013 01:55 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote: I think this is the type of rendering that Darren is looking for: informationfreeway.org/?lat=-20.374lon=148.633zoom=15layers=00F000B0 You'll have to copy and paste the link. Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. Cheers Ross On 24/08/13 03:58, Darren Biggs wrote: That is what I am looking for with the default OSM render. I use OSM in aplications like www.ridewithgps.com http://www.ridewithgps.com. That use the default/OSM render. That way cyclist/motorcyclists can know if the road is dirt or not. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: The HOT HDDM Mapcss style under development adresses the question of road surfaces and it is a very good progress to represent both road classification and surface conditions. However, I would like that the rendering of surface condition do not have preseance over the road classification. Below are two rendering examples with this style : 1. Residential roads see http://hotosm.github.io/HDM-CartoCSS/#19/19.67173/-72.12289 2. An unpaved segment of a primary road see http://hotosm.github.io/HDM-CartoCSS/#17/18.60331/-72.27918 Pierre *De :* Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com mailto:a...@mapbox.com *À :* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com *Cc :* talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org; Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com mailto:ou98dtbi...@gmail.com *Envoyé le :* Vendredi 23 août 2013 10h16 *Objet :* Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM +1 The absence of a style for surface=unpaved leads to a very common misunderstanding and large amounts of roads mistagged: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:44, Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com mailto:ou98dtbi...@gmail.com ha scritto: Specifically the Unsurfaced road dashed lines. I see many tracks, but not one Unsurfaced road any road can be unsurfaced http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Have Bike will Travel http://thebikeandmore.blogspot.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Ross Scanlon wrote: informationfreeway.org/?lat=-20.374lon=148.633zoom=15layers=00F000B0 You'll have to copy and paste the link. Actually you will have to do more than that. the domain is incorrectly set up, so only http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=-20.374lon=148.633zoom=15layers=00F000B0 will actually work - you need the www. Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. If what you are talking about is the change in style on the roads to the right, then how were they generated as they do not appear on the main database? It's nice to see I can just cut and paste the old style location urls and they will be recognised - hopefully no-one will remove that as redundant ;) I have an interest in this for showing what is to the side of roads. While on one hand macro mapping says add tags to a road to show things like footpaths and cycleways, micro mapping would show the all of the infrastructure actually as areas, but at least as separate identifiable ways which can be selected in preference to the road for planning waking and cycling activity. If the 'road' with no 'side furniture' is rendered with broken sides like this it makes sense. Africa has considerably more of the 'tracks' that I am talking about and there it is even more important to identify ones where the two ruts making up the track would make it dangerous for following on foot? While many parts of the world have different requirements, generally the same rules apply worldwide? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 24/08/13 17:46, Lester Caine wrote: Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. If what you are talking about is the change in style on the roads to the right, then how were they generated as they do not appear on the main database? It's nice to see I can just cut and paste the old style location urls and they will be recognised - hopefully no-one will remove that as redundant ;) Have a look at what layer is selected. You see that it's not osm. Cheers Ross I have an interest in this for showing what is to the side of roads. While on one hand macro mapping says add tags to a road to show things like footpaths and cycleways, micro mapping would show the all of the infrastructure actually as areas, but at least as separate identifiable ways which can be selected in preference to the road for planning waking and cycling activity. If the 'road' with no 'side furniture' is rendered with broken sides like this it makes sense. Africa has considerably more of the 'tracks' that I am talking about and there it is even more important to identify ones where the two ruts making up the track would make it dangerous for following on foot? While many parts of the world have different requirements, generally the same rules apply worldwide? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Ross Scanlon wrote: Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. If what you are talking about is the change in style on the roads to the right, then how were they generated as they do not appear on the main database? It's nice to see I can just cut and paste the old style location urls and they will be recognised - hopefully no-one will remove that as redundant ;) Have a look at what layer is selected. You see that it's not osm. Hence the question! -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 24/08/13 19:39, Lester Caine wrote: Ross Scanlon wrote: Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. If what you are talking about is the change in style on the roads to the right, then how were they generated as they do not appear on the main database? It's nice to see I can just cut and paste the old style location urls and they will be recognised - hopefully no-one will remove that as redundant ;) Have a look at what layer is selected. You see that it's not osm. Hence the question! Ok. The roads in question are not in osm, they were pre redaction, they are still in another database. The rendering based on that database is the layer shown. Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Ross Scanlon wrote: Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. If what you are talking about is the change in style on the roads to the right, then how were they generated as they do not appear on the main database? It's nice to see I can just cut and paste the old style location urls and they will be recognised - hopefully no-one will remove that as redundant ;) Have a look at what layer is selected. You see that it's not osm. Hence the question! Ok. The roads in question are not in osm, they were pre redaction, they are still in another database. The rendering based on that database is the layer shown. I had assumed that it was rendered from a database as stubs of the roads are still present, so it was not a simple graphical mashup. The main reason for the question was that the style looks nice and I would be interested in replicating it on my own tiles. Some of the historic styles are still a lot tidier than the current style sheets :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Am 24.08.2013 01:42, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 16:52, Pieren pier...@gmail.com ha scritto: BTW I just discover that some people are tagging for routing (after tagging for the renderer). They add access=yes or motor_vehicle=yes to open the routable track in OSRM... there is no problem with tagging correct access restrictions, especially for tracks you can't know who is entitled to access the way if you don't have deep insight into the national or regional legislation, e.g. in at least one German Land (BaWü) motorized traffic is implicitly excluded from tracks while in the rest of Germany it is only excluded if signposted. Sorry, but how do you get the hint that it is a track and not an unclassified highway and you are not allowed to use it without sign ? I live in BaWü and I always find these signs and tag accordingly if possible and I did not find many tracks without sign. You might be right if you are talking about tracks through the forest. These are usually only allowed for forestry and bicycles are not allowed on pathes in the forest ! cu colliar signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Il giorno 24/ago/2013, alle ore 15:11, colliar colliar4e...@aol.com ha scritto: Sorry, but how do you get the hint that it is a track and not an unclassified highway and you are not allowed to use it without sign ? yes, this remains a miracle for me as well, but it seems to be the legal situation. Fortunately they are quite explicit with their signs in BaWü so it is not a big practical problem... cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
So, how would you classify a one-lane road leading through a former field, now overgrown with 30 years or so of bushes and saplings, leading to a billboard adjoining a motorway? The only improvements the road receives is to be mowed periodically to keep it passable, and its only use is by crews periodically changing what is displayed on the billboard. This hardly qualifies as agricultural use, but I tagged it as a track because it is too rudimentary to qualify as anything else. Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:40:33PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: I think the general idea is that track is a dirt roads fit for two-tracked vehicles (cars, agricultural) and path is a dirt road fit for one-tracked vehicles (because too narrow for two-tracked). A track is for aggricultural purposes - As soon there is the school bus or waste collection trucks passing it CANT be a track. Its either highway=service/service=driveway or an unclassified - it might have a surface=dirt/grass whatever. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Il giorno 24/ago/2013, alle ore 16:04, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com ha scritto: So, how would you classify a one-lane road leading through a former field, now overgrown with 30 years or so of bushes and saplings, leading to a billboard adjoining a motorway? service cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
I have been trying to have dirt roads show up in the render for about a year now. I see that that the Map legend has unsurfaced road. I have looked around but can not find any roads that have the Map Legends use of unsurfaced road(Road, but with dashes). I have looked in Europe and these roads, are listed as tracks, in America, this are roads, they just happen to be dirt. I am a cyclist so sometimes I am trying to find dirt roads, and while other times I am trying to avoid dirt roads. -D -- Have Bike will Travel http://thebikeandmore.blogspot.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:22, Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com ha scritto: I have been trying to have dirt roads show up in the render for about a year now. I see that that the Map legend has unsurfaced road. I have looked around but can not find any roads that have the Map Legends use of unsurfaced road(Road, but with dashes). I have looked in Europe and these roads, are listed as tracks, in America, this are roads, they just happen to be dirt. I am a cyclist so sometimes I am trying to find dirt roads, and while other times I am trying to avoid dirt roads. unsurfaced is a deprecated highway value, as should be dirt road, these are usually either unclassified (normal road) or track (agricultural/forestal road, not thought for ordinary traffic) or service or residential, in rare cases or remote areas maybe tertiary or secondary. The surface property goes into a different property (surface) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 2013-08-23 15:22, Darren Biggs wrote: I have been trying to have dirt roads show up in the render for about a year now. I see that that the Map legend has unsurfaced road. I have looked around but can not find any roads that have the Map Legends use of unsurfaced road(Road, but with dashes). I have looked in Europe and these roads, are listed as tracks, in America, this are roads, they just happen to be dirt. I am a cyclist so sometimes I am trying to find dirt roads, and while other times I am trying to avoid dirt roads. I think the general idea is that track is a dirt roads fit for two-tracked vehicles (cars, agricultural) and path is a dirt road fit for one-tracked vehicles (because too narrow for two-tracked). I would use these two for your purpose. That is as you rightly say how they are used in Europe. A track with tracktype=grade1 is could even be a proper road. Maybe you have some streetview examples of what you want to map? I could offer you this one [1] which I would map as a grade 3, although it recently had a load of gravel deposited on it, making it more a grade 2. [1] https://maps.google.nl/?ll=51.399194,6.029728spn=0.027631,0.067377t=mz=14layer=ccbll=51.399194,6.029728panoid=0Ua6ivYxS87FCOpXn_dtCwcbp=12,321.13,,0,18 Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Can someone give me a place on the Map where I can see this road shown, which I can repeat? Specifically the Unsurfaced road dashed lines. I see many tracks, but not one Unsurfaced road [image: Secondary12] Secondary road[image: Unsurfaced] Unsurfaced road[image: Track] Track[image: Byway] Byway On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:22, Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com ha scritto: I have been trying to have dirt roads show up in the render for about a year now. I see that that the Map legend has unsurfaced road. I have looked around but can not find any roads that have the Map Legends use of unsurfaced road(Road, but with dashes). I have looked in Europe and these roads, are listed as tracks, in America, this are roads, they just happen to be dirt. I am a cyclist so sometimes I am trying to find dirt roads, and while other times I am trying to avoid dirt roads. unsurfaced is a deprecated highway value, as should be dirt road, these are usually either unclassified (normal road) or track (agricultural/forestal road, not thought for ordinary traffic) or service or residential, in rare cases or remote areas maybe tertiary or secondary. The surface property goes into a different property (surface) cheers, Martin -- Have Bike will Travel http://thebikeandmore.blogspot.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:40, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl ha scritto: A track with tracktype=grade1 is could even be a proper road. -1, a track is never a proper road, otherwise it won't be a track ;-) but a track with tracktype=grade1 will always be paved (asphalt or concrete) or have similar characteristics (compacted hardcore and very even) Maybe you have some streetview examples of what you want to map? how could that help? You will have to know the road in order to make the classification without guessing ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:44, Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com ha scritto: Specifically the Unsurfaced road dashed lines. I see many tracks, but not one Unsurfaced road any road can be unsurfaced http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway cheers, Martin___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Track is used more and more for unpaved roads. Mapnik and other renderers are probably a big reason, because they don't render Surfacehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surfaceand Smoothness http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness tags. I really don't know of any renderers that show these tags. I hope the new openstreetmap-carto stylesheet will speed up fixing this problem. BTW osrm.at is helping in this campaign, because it doesn't route through tracks (although I'm not sure if it takes Surface and Smoothness tags into account). Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
+1 The absence of a style for surface=unpaved leads to a very common misunderstanding and large amounts of roads mistagged: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:44, Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com ha scritto: Specifically the Unsurfaced road dashed lines. I see many tracks, but not one Unsurfaced road any road can be unsurfaced http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 23/08/2013 16:16, Alex Barth wrote: The absence of a style for surface=unpaved leads to a very common misunderstanding and large amounts of roads mistagged That is overwhelmingly the case for Africa - while there are some actual tracks there, there is a large number of unclassified unpaved roads and even residential ones that are modeled as tracks. Rendering ways with surface=(ground|dirt|gravel|sand) with a distinctive texture would probably encourage those well-meaning contributors to correct tagging. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: BTW osrm.at is helping in this campaign, because it doesn't route through tracks BTW I just discover that some people are tagging for routing (after tagging for the renderer). They add access=yes or motor_vehicle=yes to open the routable track in OSRM... http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/2013-June/000158.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/2013-June/000149.html Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Darren Biggs wrote: Can someone give me a place on the Map where I can see this road shown, which I can repeat? Specifically the Unsurfaced road dashed lines. I see many tracks, but not one Unsurfaced road Secondary12 Secondary road Unsurfaced Unsurfaced road Track Track Byway Byway You can use something like Overpass Turbo (linked from taginfo) to find things like this. http://overpass-turbo.eu/?key=highwayvalue=unsurfacedtemplate=key-value Here's an example I found: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/110010984 Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
That is what I am looking for with the default OSM render. I use OSM in aplications like www.ridewithgps.com. That use the default/OSM render. That way cyclist/motorcyclists can know if the road is dirt or not. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: The HOT HDDM Mapcss style under development adresses the question of road surfaces and it is a very good progress to represent both road classification and surface conditions. However, I would like that the rendering of surface condition do not have preseance over the road classification. Below are two rendering examples with this style : 1. Residential roads see http://hotosm.github.io/HDM-CartoCSS/#19/19.67173/-72.12289 2. An unpaved segment of a primary road see http://hotosm.github.io/HDM-CartoCSS/#17/18.60331/-72.27918 Pierre -- *De :* Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com *À :* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com *Cc :* talk@openstreetmap.org talk@openstreetmap.org; Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com *Envoyé le :* Vendredi 23 août 2013 10h16 *Objet :* Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM +1 The absence of a style for surface=unpaved leads to a very common misunderstanding and large amounts of roads mistagged: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:44, Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com ha scritto: Specifically the Unsurfaced road dashed lines. I see many tracks, but not one Unsurfaced road any road can be unsurfaced http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Have Bike will Travel http://thebikeandmore.blogspot.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:40:33PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: I think the general idea is that track is a dirt roads fit for two-tracked vehicles (cars, agricultural) and path is a dirt road fit for one-tracked vehicles (because too narrow for two-tracked). A track is for aggricultural purposes - As soon there is the school bus or waste collection trucks passing it CANT be a track. Its either highway=service/service=driveway or an unclassified - it might have a surface=dirt/grass whatever. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Florian Lohoff wrote: On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:40:33PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: I think the general idea is that track is a dirt roads fit for two-tracked vehicles (cars, agricultural) and path is a dirt road fit for one-tracked vehicles (because too narrow for two-tracked). A track is for aggricultural purposes - As soon there is the school bus or waste collection trucks passing it CANT be a track. Its either highway=service/service=driveway or an unclassified - it might have a surface=dirt/grass whatever. Sorry, but this is the whole problem with the way things had been reorganised. 'Dirt' trackways need to be rendered in a different way to highway=service, and from a rendering point of view having to search other tags to modify the base rendering, and also routing, is just wrong. So I will not use highway=service for trackways around here that are still used by school buses, refuse trucks and delivery lorries. As a result tracks that are only suitable for agricultural access get tagged as paths to distinguish them from the ones that are used more publically, but are not 'highways'. Sat Nav routing is giving some strange results and long detours avoiding some of these public trackways so sorting this out is important. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:01:03PM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: Sorry, but this is the whole problem with the way things had been reorganised. 'Dirt' trackways need to be rendered in a different way to highway=service, and from a rendering point of view having to search other tags to modify the base rendering, and also routing, is just wrong. So I will not use highway=service for trackways around here that are still used by school buses, refuse trucks and delivery lorries. As a result tracks that are only suitable for agricultural access get tagged as paths to distinguish them from the ones that are used more publically, but are not 'highways'. Sat Nav routing is giving some strange results and long detours avoiding some of these public trackways so sorting this out is important. paths = 1 stripe of dirt track = 2 stripes of dirt track - aggricultural use only/mostly - but still for some destinations the ONLY way to reach them e.g. ME. Currently for example OpenRouteService will not be able to generate a route to my home. It reaches 800m near on a service road with NO way to continue. Sometimes it even will generate ~15km longer routes to the exact same deadend because tracks are by definition not allowed for routing in OpenRouteService. routing is completely based on highway classification e.g. unclassified, tertiary, secondary, primary, motorway. Rendering is (should) be done on the classification and may be changed by additional tags as its done right now for tracks e.g. grade Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 21:01, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk ha scritto: So I will not use highway=service for trackways around here that are still used by school buses, refuse trucks and delivery lorries. what makes you believe it's a track and not an unpaved road if even the school bus takes that road? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 16:52, Pieren pier...@gmail.com ha scritto: BTW I just discover that some people are tagging for routing (after tagging for the renderer). They add access=yes or motor_vehicle=yes to open the routable track in OSRM... there is no problem with tagging correct access restrictions, especially for tracks you can't know who is entitled to access the way if you don't have deep insight into the national or regional legislation, e.g. in at least one German Land (BaWü) motorized traffic is implicitly excluded from tracks while in the rest of Germany it is only excluded if signposted. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
I think this is the type of rendering that Darren is looking for: informationfreeway.org/?lat=-20.374lon=148.633zoom=15layers=00F000B0 You'll have to copy and paste the link. Notice the broken casing on the sides of some of the roads. Cheers Ross On 24/08/13 03:58, Darren Biggs wrote: That is what I am looking for with the default OSM render. I use OSM in aplications like www.ridewithgps.com http://www.ridewithgps.com. That use the default/OSM render. That way cyclist/motorcyclists can know if the road is dirt or not. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: The HOT HDDM Mapcss style under development adresses the question of road surfaces and it is a very good progress to represent both road classification and surface conditions. However, I would like that the rendering of surface condition do not have preseance over the road classification. Below are two rendering examples with this style : 1. Residential roads see http://hotosm.github.io/HDM-CartoCSS/#19/19.67173/-72.12289 2. An unpaved segment of a primary road see http://hotosm.github.io/HDM-CartoCSS/#17/18.60331/-72.27918 Pierre *De :* Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com mailto:a...@mapbox.com *À :* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com *Cc :* talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org; Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com mailto:ou98dtbi...@gmail.com *Envoyé le :* Vendredi 23 août 2013 10h16 *Objet :* Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM +1 The absence of a style for surface=unpaved leads to a very common misunderstanding and large amounts of roads mistagged: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 23/ago/2013, alle ore 15:44, Darren Biggs ou98dtbi...@gmail.com mailto:ou98dtbi...@gmail.com ha scritto: Specifically the Unsurfaced road dashed lines. I see many tracks, but not one Unsurfaced road any road can be unsurfaced http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Have Bike will Travel http://thebikeandmore.blogspot.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: So I will not use highway=service for trackways around here that are still used by school buses, refuse trucks and delivery lorries. what makes you believe it's a track and not an unpaved road if even the school bus takes that road? No footpaths, lights, tarmac or road markings but freely available to drive along. It's a track ... but the current definition prevents it's use. Adding other tags to 'service' is wrong as well as its servicing anywhere, and unclassified has a similar incongruity. Many of them have been at least hardcored, but even then 'road' just seems too grand a title for a track. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM
On 08/24/2013 03:05 AM, Lester Caine wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: So I will not use highway=service for trackways around here that are still used by school buses, refuse trucks and delivery lorries. what makes you believe it's a track and not an unpaved road if even the school bus takes that road? No footpaths, lights, tarmac or road markings but freely available to drive along. It's a track ... but the current definition prevents it's use. Adding other tags to 'service' is wrong as well as its servicing anywhere, and unclassified has a similar incongruity. Many of them have been at least hardcored, but even then 'road' just seems too grand a title for a track. Looks like you need to make peace with the dissonnance produced by the difference between OSM's narrow definition of the word 'track' and how it is loosely thrown around in other contexts to designate an unpaved way. Rigid technical acceptions and popular usage can coexist ! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
