<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/04/2021 23:41, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTBVMTgh6YXPEMnj=NC_1eLLtxhY-bHY7Sw6gF8+bgWH1A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Di., 27. Apr. 2021 um
22:01 Uhr schrieb Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <<a
href="mailto:bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>If you mean the keys winter_road and/or ice_road, I
find those hardly helpfull to describe the road conditions
and how feasible it is to use these for different road
users.<br>
To some extend an attempt was made to resolve the issue
with tracktype, like in AUstralia and 4WD drive tagging.
However these refer to vehicle types to describe how they
can be used, doesn't give any information what the hazards
or conditions are. SO I don't find these much informative
to make any conclusions in that regard either as in Africa
most of us are very skilled unpaved road drivers, even
without 4WD vehicles. It doesn't give you a clue how it
is to use these roads by bicycle, on foot, wheel carriage,
normal car, truck etc... <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>do you believe there is a way to integrate this kind of
information in the current tagging scheme, and how would you
do it?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana">We have been struggling with this like forever.<br>
</font>
<p><font face="Verdana">The direction I am thinking about is
something (very preliminary) like this:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">1.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">hazard:TYPE:CONDITION= none / mild /
substantial / severe</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">where TYPE gives the type of hazard. TYPE
being dust / slippery / traction / washboarding(skidding) /
noise / holes / mudsink / sticky / mudsplash / wildlife /
flooding / spray / thrown-up stones / overgrowth / dust dunes /
fog / icing / snowpiles.<br>
I am thinking about a hazard key because like f.i. the dust is
not only a hazard for the road user but also for the environment
and residents close to the road, and can be very severe. So data
consumers can use the tag on the road also to analyse possible
environmental and health impact on the surroundings.<br>
What I don't like in this concept is that we use multiple
"values" in the key, but didn't come up with a more simple
solution yet.<br>
CONDITION is like wet / dry / freezing. I don't like to use the
seasonal key here, as it is also not conclusive as f.i. to
describe freezing conditions or not, wet and dry as in wet and
dry seasons as due to our changing seasons and varying seasons
(especially wet / dry) on a regional basis.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">What this model lacks is a time constraint
for daily variations, like for instance the fog hazard might be
only common in the morning or evening hours. <br>
The frequency of different vehicle or road users which can
influence the hazards impact. F.i. one could use frequency
tagging like for motorised vehicles which makes the dust or
noise hazard much more severe, but a high frequency of bicycle
or pedestrians would not. Also this makes the whole range of
data more complex but is needed to be conclusive.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">2.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">An alternative could be to classify the
hazards in regard to road users.<br>
Like: hazard:pedestrian:wet=mudsink; slippery. <br>
The problem with such a scheme is that it becomes complex when
you want to integrate the severity of the hazard.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">3.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">One could think about hazard:pedestrian:wet=
mudsink severe; slippery mild etc... but this introduces values
with multiple conclusive data in one value.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">4.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">An alternative to that could be to just give
a general indication like hazard:pedestrian:wet= mild. Needing
another tag to indicate what the actual hazard is, as f.i. it
can be mitigated by proper measures like wearing a mask for
dust...</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Very happy to get some ideas about this.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">As you can see I can make no conclusions
from the current tagging with surface, smoothness, tracktype or
seasonal tagging yet I can imagine these road use conditions can
be of ajor importance and decisive for routing purposes, for
various road user categories.<br>
</font></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTBVMTgh6YXPEMnj=NC_1eLLtxhY-bHY7Sw6gF8+bgWH1A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>All efforts which we use today for smoothness and surface is just short term, non-conditional information
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>the smoothness tag is clearly coming from an area where paved road surfaces are predominant (you can see this from the definition and distribution of values). If it doesn’t work well for unpaved roads, that’s not a reason to deprecate it for everybody.</pre>
</blockquote>
I didn't say we should deprecate it, but I think we can
agree on the fact that, besides that it maybe says that
are are potholes it doesn't give you much information or
conclusive ways to describe suitability or comfort for
different road user categories ?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am not using it a lot, but I think it is suitable to
say a road is smooth and suitable for any vehicle, but it
may be less on par for describing relatively bad surfaces.
The smoothness tag was introduced by a Swiss mapper, and
most of our tags are developed in Europe. You are the first
person from Africa who participates frequently on this list,
and I truly welcome this. We really need more input and
proposals from different regions.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana">It's not just a topic in Africa, I do believe
many countries in Asia, Australia and South America face the same
issues and we really need some more participation from those areas
also.<br>
</font>
<p><font face="Verdana">I also think in the Western countries, on
paved roads many of these hazards can be decisive for routing
choices. Spray, icing, fog .... may be signposted but also may
be not. Besides of traffic_signs OSM lacks tagging and data to
provide this information, yet is easily to be obtained by ground
truth and has a high impact on our daily lives.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Maybe we need an international volunteer
team to work on a comprehensive global yet KISS proposal ?</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Greetings,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Bert Araali<br>
</font></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTBVMTgh6YXPEMnj=NC_1eLLtxhY-bHY7Sw6gF8+bgWH1A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>