<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div><span>Unfortunately i can't find my original comments on tracks and 4wd_only, but I'll concede that highway=track doesn't necessarily mean 4wd_only=yes.</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 don't like 4wd_only=no because many tracks that may be used by 2wds can rapidly deteriorate to a 4wd track and, as previously mentioned, weather can change everything. I know forestry roads that are definitely classed as "touristy" roads but, add a bit of rain and keep the grader away for a while and that road is pretty rough in a 4wd. No
tag leaves the onus on the user to use his/her own discretion. There's also the problem of what type of 2wd. Yeah i know I'm picking at this but I've heard the comments from the knuckleheads. A Falcon is a 2wd - as is a Kia Carnival and a Jag and a Ferrari. Does 2wd_only mean all those? No tag = up to the driver to work it out.<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>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> Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:00 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 20<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 summary (David Bannon)<br> 2. Re: dirt roads - a summary (Ian Sergeant)<br> 3. Re: dirt roads - a summary (Mark Pulley)<br> 4. Re: dirt roads - a summary (John Henderson)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:39:53 +1030<br>From: "David Bannon" <<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 - a summary<br>Message-ID:<br> <<a ymailto="mailto:38c3ab4655c281ac64279a1e5bb9cf80e7083290@webmail.internode.on.net" href="mailto:38c3ab4655c281ac64279a1e5bb9cf80e7083290@webmail.internode.on.net">38c3ab4655c281ac64279a1e5bb9cf80e7083290@webmail.internode.on.net</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>Hi Folks, a summary of discussion on dirt roads before I hack at the<br>discussion tab of Australian_Road_Tagging. Seems to me two issues not<br>completely clear -<br><br>1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I<br>don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight,<br>we need to use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats<br>what
4x4_only tag is for. Whats the feeling here folks ?<br><br>2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked<br>4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's<br>appropriate. Particularly in places where there may be some assumption<br>that the tracks are often pretty tough. I am not completely convinced,<br>see two problems, it does, to some extent, change the idea that<br>default is 'no'. Secondly, importantly, tracks change over time and<br>people opinions on what is and is not a 4x4 track vary. Saying "you<br>will be OK in a conventional car" is a lot stronger statement than<br>"you might/will need a 4x4". Comments please ?<br><br>At present, mainstream rendering? emphasizes the purpose of a road.<br>Trouble is that (possibly uninformed) people look at the maps and<br>assume a thick prominent line means a well maintained, probably sealed<br>road.<br><br>I think there is some agreement that a means of showing the
"4x4-ness"<br>of a track on the mainstream (ie mapnik) maps is desirable and<br>possibly a safety issue. The best way to show this might be to append<br>"4x4" to the name of tracks where 4x4_only is set to yes or<br>recommended (Matt).? <br><br>Similarly, showing sealed/unsealed may also be a good idea.<br><br>I note that if you look at the slippery map on osm.org, click Map Key<br>at a zoomed in level there is a key for "unsealed road", a thick grey<br>dashed line. I spent an hour looking for an example of that on<br>Australian and overseas maps but found none. But thats what we want<br>??? <br><br>If we are to have even the slightest chance of getting changes in this<br>space, it will be because we all agree and play the safety card !<br><br>I will clarify lanes=1 where two cars cannot pass at 'normal' speed<br>(Paul, John). And no lanes= tag for default situation.<br><br>I will also suggest that survey is probably required for tracks, sat<br>or
aerial sources risk missing things like water crossing or gates<br>that completely change the nature of the whole road. A safety issue<br>again.<br><br>David<br><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/0082fee5/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/0082fee5/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:08:18 +1100<br>From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+<a ymailto="mailto:osm@gmail.com" href="mailto:osm@gmail.com">osm@gmail.com</a>><br>To: David Bannon <<a ymailto="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net" href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net">dbannon@internode.on.net</a>><br>Cc: <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 - a summary<br>Message-ID:<br> <CALDa4YLTFkUx7kx6O3YwnsSO69vTSs+<a ymailto="mailto:9zzrnO7yFuH_TcACJ1w@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:9zzrnO7yFuH_TcACJ1w@mail.gmail.com">9zzrnO7yFuH_TcACJ1w@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br><br>On 23 October 2012 11:09, David Bannon <<a ymailto="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net" href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net">dbannon@internode.on.net</a>> wrote:<br><br>> 2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked<br>> 4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's appropriate.<br>> Particularly in places where there may be some assumption that the tracks<br>> are often pretty tough. I am not completely convinced<br>> ...<br><br>This is OSM. A missing tag can mean that someone has considered it<br>and
decided the default value is appropriate, or it can mean that no<br>one has cast their mind to it.<br><br>Where there is a possibility of confusion, or something out of the<br>ordinary, then I tag and leave notes for future mappers, so they can<br>improve on it. I think this is Good Mapping, and at worst Does No<br>Harm. If you think it is too, then do the same. If you don't, then<br>don't, it isn't compulsory. Just don't remove tags others consider<br>useful (unless, of course, they are factually wrong).<br><br>Ian.<br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:42:18 +1100<br>From: Mark Pulley <<a ymailto="mailto:mrpulley@lizzy.com.au" href="mailto:mrpulley@lizzy.com.au">mrpulley@lizzy.com.au</a>><br>To: OSM - Talk-au <<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
- a summary<br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:4A4B6FB1-FA21-4B54-89C5-C9FE1642995D@lizzy.com.au" href="mailto:4A4B6FB1-FA21-4B54-89C5-C9FE1642995D@lizzy.com.au">4A4B6FB1-FA21-4B54-89C5-C9FE1642995D@lizzy.com.au</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br>On 23/10/2012, at 11:09 AM, David Bannon wrote:<br><br>> 1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight, we need to use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats what 4x4_only tag is for. Whats the feeling here folks ?<br><br>Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not be implied by highway=track.<br><br>Mark P.<br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/4fe2b26e/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/4fe2b26e/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 4<br>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:53:40 +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 - a summary<br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:508630E4.2020301@gmx.com" href="mailto:508630E4.2020301@gmx.com">508630E4.2020301@gmx.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br><br>On 23/10/12 15:42, Mark Pulley wrote:<br> ><br> > Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely<br> > drivable
with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS<br> > trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not<br> > be implied by highway=track.<br><br>Seconded, from similar experience. I hasten to add that wet weather<br>might make ANY unpaved road impassable in places, but tracks likely more so.<br><br>Any experienced driver will understand that. We can't begin to think<br>that we can keep everyone out of trouble by adding a few tags to OSM.<br><br>John<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
20<br>***************************************<br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>