I say this "from a great distance," but here goes: if you consider that
AU:Urban or AU:rural (and/or similar) are QUITE LOOSE compared to EXPLICIT
tagging, you might be able to nudge things ahead in a semantic parsing sense.
It won't be perfect, it likely never will be (ambiguities about whether it's
valid to "do" this, or that...are never-ending) but it can "oomph things
forward" a bit, sometimes more. Not much more than that, but better than
nothing.
This is tough stuff, and it is context-driven as to where there is a boundary
and where fuzzy becomes "um, I'm shrugging my shoulders." Keep an eye on that.
> On Apr 21, 2022, at 12:09 AM, Andrew Hughes <ahhug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your contributions to this thread so far, much appreciated!
>
> Please correct me if you disagree with this...
> 1. So it would seem that ALL roads should be tagged with maxspeed and
> assigned a numeric value (kph), where the maxspeed is known.
> 2. Supplementary to #1. the maxspeed:type tag also adds information of value
> because it can indicate if the maxspeed is "signed" or on the basis of it
> being unsigned and relative to its geographical ("AU:Urban" or "AU:rural")
> location.
>
> Important question...
> The guidelines also suggest that the use of maxspeed = "AU:Urban" or
> "AU:rural" without a maxspeed tag could indicate that this has not been
> surveyed. Adding this tag (with these values) without a maxspeed is also
> encouraged as it improves the data such that the maxspeed can be assumed with
> far greater accuracy (50pkh/60kph NT or 100kph), and loosely indicates the
> survey status.
>
> Cheers,
> AH
<remainder redacted for brevity>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
