<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11-Feb-17 11:28 AM, Ross Scanlon
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:51be45be-abad-f70c-a3bd-b8ce5f142687@4x4falcon.com"
type="cite">
<br>
On 11/02/17 07:00, Warin wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The NSW LPT base map is particularly
helpful for road classifications .. tracks, unclassified,
tertiary and paths.
<br>
It is in some ways better than a survey as it looks to take into
account the importance to the community and that is very hard to
determine by simply travelling the road.
<br>
<br>
Where a 'track' travels a long distance .. say over 50 km I
would argue that it is 'unclassified' as that length suggests it
is not a simple service/maintenance track but a connection
between distant points.
<br>
As far as seeking out the 'interesting/adventure' roads .. I
first look for unpaved, then connecting. The old 'Tracks for
Australia' garmin map is helpful but well out of date.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
So your saying above that a track like the Canning Stock Route
should be an unclassified road? It's about 1800kms and is
definitely a track not a road. There are some sections you could
possibly call an unclassified road but they are not maintained.
For the majority of it's length it is two wheel tracks through the
scrub and sand dunes.
<br>
<br>
I'd suggest everyone have a read of the wiki pages for track and
unclassified. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack</a><br>
"roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks"<br>
"<a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Classification"
title="Highways">classify them as usual</a> according to the
conventions in your country,"<br>
"vehicular use is dominated by field access or forest management,
but not any heavier sort of industry.
"<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified</a><b><br>
"</b>used for minor public roads typically at the lowest level of
the interconnecting grid <b>"<br>
"</b>The least important sort of minor roads which are either a)
proper signposted formal parts of the public road network, or b)
nominally private or just unsignposted but the locals use them
anyway. The idea is that "4"-wheel vehicular use by the general
public is possible, the general public use dominates other uses, and
no single specific purpose dominates.<b>
"<br>
<br>
</b>
These are not clear and there is suggestions to refer to the country
guidelines <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads_.28Dirt.2C_Gravel.2C_Formed.2C_etc.29">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads_.28Dirt.2C_Gravel.2C_Formed.2C_etc.29</a><br>
<br>
and that is not clear either. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:51be45be-abad-f70c-a3bd-b8ce5f142687@4x4falcon.com"
type="cite"> I've always tagged them by looking to see if they are
maintained/graded. If they are graded, and that's generally
pretty obvious from aerial imagery as well, then they are minimum
unclassified. If not then they are tracks.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
How frequently are they graded? Sections of the Canning are graded.
A track locally to me was recently graded .. last grading was
probably done 20 years ago ...but I'd not call it 'unclassified' as
it is not important enough. It is in quite good condition now. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:51be45be-abad-f70c-a3bd-b8ce5f142687@4x4falcon.com"
type="cite">
<br>
Have a look at this area in josm, with bing imagery
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-30.0090/116.8188">http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-30.0090/116.8188</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
or here it is on bing maps:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://binged.it/2kcYMV6">https://binged.it/2kcYMV6</a>
<br>
<br>
and where it's unsealed
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://binged.it/2kd8irh">https://binged.it/2kd8irh</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Looking at the road that comes up from the south east and then
according to MRWA it continues to the north west.
<br>
MRWA classifies the south east part as osm tertiary and the north
west part as unclassified.
<br>
<br>
However I'd tag the north west part as track as it's little more
than two wheel tracks through the scrub and the further you go
along it the more it deteriorates.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
The condition/difficulty of the road is best determined by
travelling the road, I don't add that detail unless I have
travelled it. I do add surface=unpaved/paved ...
<br>
on some bridges I remove the surface tag as I cannot be certain
what is there, on a few I change it to concrete.
<br>
<br>
On 10-Feb-17 05:55 PM, David Bannon wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ? I
personally think that you should only correct another mapper's
work if you have personally seen something that needs
correction. I am sure there are some exceptions. But here, in
particular, you seem to have "negative" information.
<br>
<br>
Its also worth remembering that highway= indicates the purpose
of the road or track, a number of other tags indicate its
condition. In theory ....
<br>
<br>
David
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/02/17 10:51, Warren wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have asked this question before but
did not really get a clear answer.
<br>
<br>
I am working off the Western Australian Main Roads data
checking against the OSM road attributes. Occasionally I
come across lines that are classed in OSM as
highway:unclassified or highway:residential that do not
appear on the Main Roads data base.
<br>
<br>
I would argue that these are named tracks rather than roads
but I wanted to check others opinion.
<br>
<br>
Do I leave them alone or change the classification to
highway:track?
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Talk-au mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Talk-au mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Talk-au mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Talk-au mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>