<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Thanks David<br><br></div>I don't like smoothness values either.<br><br>Problem is this key does't take in account other things that can prevent certain type of vehicles from using that type of track. I put an example in the last pic with a track with good surface but everything else is not so good.<br>
<br></div>At first I saw tracktype something like a "general state of the track" but I see it is not. I am glad I didn't tag any of those tracks with it. <br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2014-03-20 23:36 GMT+01:00 David Bannon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net" target="_blank">dbannon@internode.on.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Vali, great contribution to the discussion.<br>
<br>
The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused<br>
a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' !<br>
<br>
tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info<br>
for bike or walkers.<br>
<br>
I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are<br>
excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word<br>
"smoothness" and the assigned values. Sigh....<br>
<br>
Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its<br>
called "tagging for renderers", punishable by death but happens all the<br>
time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=. Some evil people<br>
consider this fact when choosing which tag to use.<br>
<br>
Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ? If<br>
promoted it could be whats needed ?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
David<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote:<br>
> Hi<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks "the right way" but<br>
> after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed<br>
> are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here<br>
> are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance<br>
> is almost none.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I have some pics to show what I am talking about:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg" target="_blank">http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg</a><br>
> <a href="http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg" target="_blank">http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great,<br>
> but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track<br>
> over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be<br>
> eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in<br>
> the wiki)<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg" target="_blank">http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg</a><br>
> <a href="http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg" target="_blank">http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller<br>
> and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter.<br>
> tracktype? surface?<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg" target="_blank">http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg</a><br>
> <a href="http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg" target="_blank">http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> This kind of track is often found in places with long-time<br>
> settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They<br>
> tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is<br>
> smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or<br>
> a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just<br>
> gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important,<br>
> their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles<br>
> there are small tractors or motorbikes.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths<br>
> as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas.<br>
><br>
> Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg" target="_blank">http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard<br>
> and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account<br>
> the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the<br>
> "drivability" of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can<br>
> use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough<br>
> sometimes.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the<br>
> list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the<br>
> things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time<br>
> tracks are widely used.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri <<a href="mailto:lauri.kytomaa@aalto.fi">lauri.kytomaa@aalto.fi</a>>:<br>
> David Bannon wrote:<br>
> >"Should I use this road or not ?"<br>
> > tracktype= does claim to use that approach<br>
><br>
><br>
> It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at<br>
> documenting. The part about "how well maintained"<br>
> on the Key:tracktype page was added later after<br>
> the values. There is a connection, but tracktype<br>
> wasn't meant to be about "usable or not", but about<br>
> the most influential attribute of the road construction<br>
> (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes),<br>
> of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the<br>
> conditions road users see on any ways not up to<br>
> the highway standards of the present day.<br>
><br>
> So it's a description of a scale from "hard materials only"<br>
> to "soft materials only". The connection to "maintained"<br>
> is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a<br>
> good approximation of the maintenance, but there can<br>
> be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?)<br>
> maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on<br>
> exposed solid rock is "hard materials only" even if nobody<br>
> ever raised a finger to "build" the way.<br>
><br>
> A user can deduce expectations from the combination<br>
> of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and<br>
> local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=*<br>
> if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users.<br>
><br>
> There can not be anything beyond "soft materials only",<br>
> that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively used<br>
> the tag to describe their assessment of "should i use or<br>
> not", the meaning of the tag has diverged from the<br>
> use in other regions, and we'll never know which one<br>
> was meant. (Luckily, there's seldom any major difference<br>
> - it's probably be the rare extreme cases that can be in<br>
> disagreement.)<br>
><br>
> If mappers want to tag a subjective "should i use it",<br>
> it should be some other tag if the hard/soft materials<br>
> scale doesn't suit them. But for which road user?<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Alv<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Tagging mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Tagging mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>