I'm quite convinced that it's impossible to pick only one tag or the other for this particular rendering decision and please everyone at the same time. That's why I'm still in favour of combining them, then each community can use whatever they like, and the discussion of which one is the best would become solely a tagging concern. The renderer would (like many other apps) simply abstain from influencing mappers. Does anybody disagree?
If nobody disagrees, I think we should only decide whether the following tag combinations are to be considered paved or unpaved: - tracktype=grade1 + surface=unpaved/ground/earth/dirt - tracktype=grade2 + surface=paved/asphalt/concrete/paving_stones Or, in other words, which tag takes precedence when deciding the way's "paved" status (which is purely a semantic problem - so please forget about the renderer for one moment). I think surface should take precedence, as it states that idea more clearly. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:15 PM, gweber <gwebe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for coming late to this discussion. I have been trying to get some > attention to the surface=unpaved rendering issue for some time. Fernando > alerted me that this discussion is now being held in this discussion list. > > Essentially the problem is that currently there is no way to alert the users > about unsurfaced roads. In countries, such as Brazil, this can easily become > a dangerous situation. > > Please have a look at this location http://osm.org/go/Nq9hwSPZ > <http://http://osm.org/go/Nq9hwSPZ> > > One of the tertiary roads is halfway unpaved. Can you see where? No one can > unless you switch to HOT style. Even then the rendering difference is too > subtle to serve as a warning. One way to work around this deficiency would > be to use highway=track and indeed that is what many people do. However this > is clearly the wrong approach. > > I would strongly favour a simple dashed border style whenever the surface > tag falls into the unpaved categories. It is as simple as that. From my > experience in driving on rural roads in Brazil, nothing else is required. > > I've seen the discussion about using tracktype for this purpose. I think > that would be ill advised as it would generate yet another semantic > inconsistency to OSM (using track-something for non-tracks, very much like > classifying highways as unclassified). So please, don't. > > I agree that the surface tag is not be as widely used as desirable, but that > may change once it is being rendered. > > Finally, I can assure you, from my own driving experience, that > surface=compacted should be considered unpaved for all practical purposes. > > > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tags-useful-for-rendering-of-roads-in-poor-conditions-tp5791303p5791478.html > Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
