Douglas Furlong wrote: > > This makes is pretty straightforward to tag for all vehicle types > easily > - a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be > smoothness=bumpy (given that car is the primary vehicle for the > tertiary > highway type) > smoothness:mtb=bumpy > smoothness:racing_bicycle=rough (or unsuitable) > smoothness:tank=normal (or even "glass like" :-) > smoothness:rollerblade=unsuitable > > > I really honestly can't see how the above differs from, for example. > > bicycle:mtb=bumpy > bicylce:racing_bicyle=rough > tank=normal > skate:inline=unsuitable, > > Other than, we drop smoothness and replace it with the mode of > transport in question. > > I would strongly suggest Richards suggestion is ultimately clearer, > than the arbitrary smoothness tag. > I wasn't suggesting it was any better, although I kind of like the core key name first (smoothness:vehicletype=*) as it doesn't waste the primary tag (and something like skate:inline=unsuitable doesn't actually indicate what the why it is unsuitable (too steep, bad surface, high traffic volume, idiot weekend cyclistd abound etc.) > > I don't personally like the term "smoothness" either, but I've yet to > find a decent alternative ("surface" would be nice, but 'tis taken). > > The 4WD proposal (plug: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only) is a > little bit separate. It could be taken into account using some sort of > smoothness, track type, surface, take your pick, but I am specifically > looking at tracks that are actually signed as 4WD only, to be rendered > with a nice bit of text at the end of the road name to make it obvious > what is 4WD only (most decent AU maps of hte country side have > explicit > 4WD tags of those roads that require it). Good for routing and the > like > (where the relative smoothness can be a bit subjective) > > > Where you have the sign post for 4WD only, is that an access > restriction or a suggestion? > > I.E. If you go on that road with a motorbike, or a 2wd vehicle, could > you face prosecution? Or would you just be considered a bit foolish? > > If it is the latter as opposed to the former, then I'd rather see some > thing along the lines of vehicle:4WD, as opposed to an access tag, > which to date I believe is being used to indicate permissibility, as > opposed to suitability, which are not the same thing at all. It is the latter (it is a recommendation) rather than a legal restriction. The point of such an explict tag is so that when I'm out driving, the map actually shows the 4WD state as text (given that I dont think the Garmin I have really has any other way of visually distinguishing the road state/vehicle requirement)
Matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk