> > So these two roads you'd consider the same?: > http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_20/slide_19.html
Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is in use and what it connects (I cannot determine this from pictures alone) with surface=dirt or surface=ground. The problem is that from most current rendering styles you can not distinguish a highway=unclassified with surface=paved from one with surface=unpaved, and this is causing us a lot of problems here in Brazil. > > http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_22/slide_34.html I would probably tag this as highway=tertiary (it seems an important road, large enough to be passable by two cars) with surface=gravel or surface=ground. Again, apart from the Humanitarian rendering style, there is no way to see the difference between a highway=tertiary with surface=unpaved from one with surface=paved. This is the reason I am saying that rendering paved differently from unpaved would be a huge improvement and would address most of our concerns. Agreed, it would not solve everything, but it would be a huge step forward compared to the present situation. > > > > Finally, I can assure you, from my own driving experience, that > > surface=compacted should be considered unpaved for all practical > > purposes. > > I disagree here, too. Though compacted is not as good as asphalt, it > is much better then an unpaved way with surface=dirt. It seems that we do not have the same concept of what surface=compacted actually means. This is the reason I am suggesting a complementary tag surface:sealed=yes or perhaps surface:stable=yes to differentiate the different situations. I can assure you that after a few weeks of non-stop torrential rain no surface stays compacted (at least not here in Brazil).
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging