Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement every one is ! Thanks folks ! If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary in a few days.
> From: "Nathan Van Der Meulen" > Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make it any less important than many others. Far from it, I live on a dirt road ! > David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some ...pass a few Falcons and Commodores), Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had a broken rear axle. > it is in fact a NT state highway .... Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag. > ....These just need to have their additional tags like surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc. Exactly! But we need to see those tags used. > I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map rendering Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ? > highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection purpose Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4. > For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads tagged 4wd_only Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface= but it does not show up on the maps most people see. Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and 4x4_only=recommended ? Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input. David
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
