<html><body><br /><blockquote>OK, I have to recognise that my "proposed proposal" is not attracting any support. So I will walk away. However, that leaves the problem unsolved and , I still think, dangerously so.<br /><br />Are there any alternatives folks ? Should we (ie in Australia) encourage people to use smoothness= for example ? I hate the tag name and the values associated with it but maybe its the only game in town ? There are already considerably more horrible, very_horrible and impassable values set against smoothness than 4wd_Only tags and by a considerable factor. It does offer a degree of "fine grain" against 4wd_only's 'yes' or not there.<br /><br />However, (eg) OSM website map ignores smoothness= (unlike tracktype) but that may be becuse not enough people are complaining about it. But I must say, I would not feel anywhere near as confident asking renderers about smoothness= as I would about an extended tracktype=.<br /><br />Please consider....<br /><br />David, <br /><br />----- Original Message -----<br /><div style="width:100%;background:rgb(228,228,228);"><div style="font-weight:bold;">From:</div> "Andrew Harvey" <andrew.harvey4@gmail.com></div><br /><br />
> This is a complete failure of the cartography and if it represented<br />
> unpaved vs paved as dotted casing then I would have been prepared and<br />
> expecting the surface change along the road.<br /><br />Indeed, but as long as mappers present the renderers with a mismash of data, we can expect no better !<br /><br />
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer<br /><br />No, I don't really think my proposal fits into this catagory, but it does take a more pragmatic view than many OSMs would. I understand it may well be too pragmatic !<br /><br /><br />>
I think your extension proposal make is more complicated as it is<br />
> unclear what the scale represents since it isn't a linear scale for one<br />
> attribute. <br /><br />well, in that case, I think I have failed. My plan was always to seek the simplest way through a very complicated maze. If its still not simple enough, so be it !<br /><br />> .... We have,<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/surface_unification<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/usability<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:Sac_scale<br />
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes<br /><br />Only useful use of surface= is unpaved. I have tried and failed with tracktype=, the 'proposed' ones mentioned above are all either abandonded or should be. mtb is about mountain bikes and so on. we are really not addressing this problem folks !<br /><br />
> Although this issue does affect Australia due to the nature of the<br />
> outback, it is a global issue. I think it would be best to take your<br />
> thoughts to the global tagging list at let the discussion happen there.<br /><br />
No, to be realistic, if I cannot get any support here in Oz, little hope of doing so elsewhere.<br /><br />Sorry about any awkard editing here, using an android device as I am away and left my laptop powersupply at home!<br /><br />David<br /></blockquote></body></html>