On 23/10/12 15:42, Mark Pulley wrote:
>
> Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely
> drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS
> trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not
> be implied by highway=track.
Seconded, fro
On 23/10/2012, at 11:09 AM, David Bannon wrote:
> 1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I don't
> really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight, we need to
> use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats what 4x4_only tag
> is for. Whats
On 23 October 2012 11:09, David Bannon wrote:
> 2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked
> 4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's appropriate.
> Particularly in places where there may be some assumption that the tracks
> are often pretty tough. I am n
Hi Folks, a summary of discussion on dirt roads before I hack at the
discussion tab of Australian_Road_Tagging. Seems to me two issues not
completely clear -
1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I
don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight,
we
4 matches
Mail list logo
