<html><body><br />
Folks, you have every right to call me fickle But maybe we need to be realistic ? This is a follow up to the discussion about advice that appears on Australian_Tagging_Guidelines and a programme to see better default rendering of dirt and 4x4 roads.<br /><br />Firstly, I approve of the 4wd_only tag, I have used it and thinks its a excellent description. However, putting together my arguments I plan to present to the OSM Guardians, I have been looking at alternatives I have not used tracktype in the past, mainly because I did not like its uninformative discriptions and the fact that it was described as being "of limited relevance to Australia". Its interesting to see just how many times 4wd_only is used compared to tracktype, here are some stats -<br /><br />4wd_only (yes and recommended)<br />Australia - 930<br />Rest of the world - 264<br /><br />tracktype (grades 1-5)<br />Australia - about 6000<br />Rest of the world - about 127,000<br /><br />Now, I am not suggesting that tracktype is a dropin replacement for 4wd_only, far from it, the definition I read says to me it stops before 4wd_only (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype ) but we might find getting a grade 6 and grade 7 (or better still, 4wdRecommended and 4wdOnly) added to tracktype easier than getting 4wd_only=recommended added to the list. And if we do, then with all those numbers, we may be able to get special rendering, and, importantly special routing rules apply to them.<br /><br />I just did some (naughty) tests on the main OSM map and find that at present, tracktype is ignored for anything other than highway=track, the tracktype wiki page complains about this too. That would have to change. But it is closer than we are with 4wd_only= tag. Nice thing is the two could exist side by side -<br />4wd_only=yes <br />tracktype=grade5<br /><br />Indeed, seems that at present, all five grades of tracktype are rendered differently. Ranges from grade one as a thin but solid brown line to grade5's small dots. <br /><br />So, I know this is not what was discussed, but do people want to re think the agreed position ?<br /><br />David <br /><br /><br /></body></html>