<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div><span>Ah dirt roads how difficult you are! Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make it any less important than many others. David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some (I have travelled the whole length of it quite recently and we passed a few Falcons and Commodores), it is in fact a NT state highway, as is the Sandover Hwy and Tanami Rd (Routes 12, 14 and 5 respectively) and should therefore, going by wiki guidelines, be classified as highway=primary. Likewise the Birdsville, Strzelecki and Oodnadatta Tracks are all SA D roads and should all be highway=tertiary (Birdsville used to have a national classification). These just need to have their additional tags like surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc. <br></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map rendering and we're currently going over the issue of how to render dirt roads/tracks, what should classify as a dirt road or track and how to populate the outback with a few roads. Currently we see highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection purpose - these would be the real backwater tracks in the outback, or the majority of 4wd tracks on the east coast. highway=unclassified are any sealed or unsealed roads that can't be classified as residential - such as 2wd forest drives (if you know the area, the Watagan Forest Drive is an example). From there up it follows the
wiki - and it doesn't matter if the road is 1 land or 8, 2wd or 4wd etc. A 4wd track on the east coast can be a highway in the centre. 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</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>Cheers</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13.3333px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>Nathan<br></span></div><div><span></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <div style="font-family:
times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> "talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org" <talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> talk-au@openstreetmap.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, 21 October 2012 1:11 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 15<br> </font> </div> <br>Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>or, via email, send a message with
subject or body 'help' to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a ymailto="mailto:talk-au-owner@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-au-owner@openstreetmap.org">talk-au-owner@openstreetmap.org</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. dirt roads (<a ymailto="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net" href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net">dbannon@internode.on.net</a>)<br> 2. Re: dirt roads (Matt White)<br> 3. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:33:21 +1030<br>From: <a
ymailto="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net" href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net">dbannon@internode.on.net</a><br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>Subject: [talk-au] dirt roads<br>Message-ID:<br> <<a ymailto="mailto:46217a218f3c33de582b3f9464710cf016d5a46e@webmail.internode.on.net" href="mailto:46217a218f3c33de582b3f9464710cf016d5a46e@webmail.internode.on.net">46217a218f3c33de582b3f9464710cf016d5a46e@webmail.internode.on.net</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br><br> Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time<br>ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out<br>at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say,<br>ones I have done myself but over a several year time span.<br><br>So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I<br>should
add them to<br><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging</a>? I don't<br>think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed.<br>However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines<br>do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case,<br>I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious<br>safety issues.<br><br>So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach<br>consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki.<br><br>Unmade roads<br><br>These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have<br>been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained<br>and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on<br>the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only,<br>might be dry weather etc. Be careful
about deciding on such<br>restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully<br>driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will<br>typically render to a dashed line.<br>highway=track<br>surface=unpaved<br>lanes=[1; 2]<br>4x4_only=[recommended; yes]<br>source=survey<br><br>Made but unsealed roads.<br><br>Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are<br>'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads<br>often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is<br>somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the<br>edge. The gutter will usually have "run offs" to drain water away from<br>the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only.<br>highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary]<br>surface=unpaved<br>lanes=[1; 2]<br>source=survey<br><br>Use of the highway tag on dirt roads.<br><br>While the selection of tags should not be
defined by how current<br>rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In<br>Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its<br>necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the<br>correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose<br>of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed<br>lines and most people would understand that means some care may well<br>be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is<br>typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between.<br>Tertiary? roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a<br>coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning<br>a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only<br>to dirt roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are<br>shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely<br>presented as
viable routes for people passing through the area. Some<br>care needs be exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as<br>'secondary'.<br><br>Discussion<br><br>Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its<br>purpose. A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is<br>probably a track from a road condition perspective, rarely maintained,<br>sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and<br>a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a 'track'<br>it would not show up on a map until you zoom in way past where you can<br>get any idea of where it starts and ends. At time of writing, its<br>highway=primary (and, I might note, incomplete), that's possibly<br>dangerously misleading. Conventional vehicles routinely use it but I'd<br>probably give it a 4x4_only=recommended tag. However, none of the<br>mainstream rendering engines observe that tag, it is no real<br>protection for a visiting
tourist.<br><br>Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads<br>defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. Thats probably quite<br>correct from a purpose view but a lot of (especially city based)<br>drivers get quite nervous when they find themselves on a dirt road. If<br>they have got there by following a OSM map showing a road with<br>coloured fill, maybe they have a case ? Most printed maps here in<br>Australia show unsealed roads without a coloured fill.? <br><br>And this does, of course, highlight the need to survey roads.<br><br>David<br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/f54032a4/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/f54032a4/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date:
Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:33:24 +1100<br>From: Matt White <<a ymailto="mailto:mattwhite@iinet.com.au" href="mailto:mattwhite@iinet.com.au">mattwhite@iinet.com.au</a>><br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads<br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:508350E4.101@iinet.com.au" href="mailto:508350E4.101@iinet.com.au">508350E4.101@iinet.com.au</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"<br><br>A couple of quick comments:<br><br>There is a 4wd tag already in use - 4wd_only:yes|recommended (with no <br>being a pointless value) <br><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes</a> There's about 1000 <br>instances of this tag in use in Australia.<br><br>There was a proposal kicking around ages ago that was trying to define
<br>some improved classification for unpaved roads (as unpaved roads come in <br>all sorts of varieties). I think the discussion got pretty acrimonious <br>and petty, but the thought was there. There are roads I've been on where <br>the surface would be OK for a normal car, but the road is a series of <br>sharp humps that would easily ground a standard clearance vehicle.<br><br>Seasonal closure is another area where I don't think the tagging is <br>complete/useful. The current tag is dry_weather_only=yes or <br>access=dry_weather_only, which is valid for any road that is impassable <br>in the wet due to surface condition or creek/river crossings, but there <br>are also tracks with explicit closures (usually mid may to the first <br>weekend in September or October) - generally marked as 'SSC' in the <br>VicMap series of maps. Don't have a solution, but it something that <br>might need working on as there are a lot of SSC roads in Victoria and
NSW<br><br>Anyway, I'm all for improved tagging of dirt roads - it's my favourite <br>kind of mapping (usually cos it turns out to involve a couple of days of <br>camping and getting out into the bush<br><br>Matt<br><br>On 21/10/2012 12:03 PM, <a ymailto="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net" href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net">dbannon@internode.on.net</a> wrote:<br>><br>> Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time <br>> ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out <br>> at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, <br>> ones I have done myself but over a several year time span.<br>><br>> So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I <br>> should add them to <br>> <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging</a> I don't <br>>
think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. <br>> However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines <br>> do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, <br>> I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious <br>> safety issues.<br>><br>> So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach <br>> consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki.<br>><br>> Unmade roads<br>><br>> These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have <br>> been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained <br>> and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on <br>> the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, <br>> might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such <br>> restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a
carefully <br>> driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will <br>> typically render to a dashed line.<br>> highway=track<br>> surface=unpaved<br>> lanes=[1; 2]<br>> 4x4_only=[recommended; yes]<br>> source=survey<br>><br>> Made but unsealed roads.<br>><br>> Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are <br>> 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads <br>> often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is <br>> somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the <br>> edge. The gutter will usually have "run offs" to drain water away from <br>> the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only.<br>> highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary]<br>> surface=unpaved<br>> lanes=[1; 2]<br>> source=survey<br>><br>> Use of the highway tag on dirt roads.<br>><br>> While
the selection of tags should not be defined by how current <br>> rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In <br>> Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its <br>> necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the <br>> correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose <br>> of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed <br>> lines and most people would understand that means some care may well <br>> be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is <br>> typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between <br>> Tertiary roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a <br>> coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning <br>> a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only <br>> to dirt roads that are reasonably well
maintained. Secondary roads are <br>> shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely <br>> presented as viable routes for people passing through the area. Some <br>> care needs be exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as 'secondary'.<br>><br>><br>> Discussion<br>><br>> Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its <br>> purpose. A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is <br>> probably a track from a road condition perspective, rarely maintained, <br>> sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and <br>> a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a 'track' <br>> it would not show up on a map until you zoom in way past where you can <br>> get any idea of where it starts and ends. At time of writing, its <br>> highway=primary (and, I might note, incomplete), that's possibly <br>> dangerously
misleading. Conventional vehicles routinely use it but I'd <br>> probably give it a 4x4_only=recommended tag. However, none of the <br>> mainstream rendering engines observe that tag, it is no real <br>> protection for a visiting tourist.<br>><br>> Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads <br>> defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. Thats probably quite <br>> correct from a purpose view but a lot of (especially city based) <br>> drivers get quite nervous when they find themselves on a dirt road. If <br>> they have got there by following a OSM map showing a road with <br>> coloured fill, maybe they have a case ? Most printed maps here in <br>> Australia show unsealed roads without a coloured fill.<br>><br>> And this does, of course, highlight the need to survey roads.<br>><br>> David<br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Talk-au mailing
list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/d13701ef/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/d13701ef/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:11:07 +1100<br>From: John Henderson <<a ymailto="mailto:snowgum@gmx.com" href="mailto:snowgum@gmx.com">snowgum@gmx.com</a>><br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt
roads<br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:508359BB.6040403@gmx.com" href="mailto:508359BB.6040403@gmx.com">508359BB.6040403@gmx.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br><br>On 21/10/12 12:03, <a ymailto="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net" href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net">dbannon@internode.on.net</a> wrote:<br><br>> lanes=[1; 2]<br><br>I thing the "lanes" tag is best not used, unless there's more than two<br>marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road.<br><br>This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines:<br><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes</a><br><br>I have two reasons for arguing this.<br><br>Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM<br>maintenance (and quite unnecessarily). And it's
something else to get<br>wrong if it's used routinely. It's easier for everybody if its used is<br>reserved for the special cases.<br><br>Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia<br>every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs. If every road in<br>Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download.<br><br>> Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads<br>> defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'.<br><br>I think a lot of roads get "pumped up" to be more important than they<br>are. The great majority of country roads should be "unclassified".<br>It's hard to make a judgement as to when a different tag should apply.<br>Is it a main connecting road between towns with a Post Office? How many<br>cars per hour travel it?<br><br>Another example is the tagging of the Hume Highway as a motorway. Most<br>of it isn't. The Hume Freeway in Victoria
is, but most of the NSW<br>section has normal side-road junctions, and is certainly not a motorway.<br>By tagging it as a motorway, we've destroyed this useful distinction.<br><br>John<br><br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Talk-au mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br><br><br>End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 15<br>***************************************<br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>