<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Good stuff Dian!</p>
<p>I don't know how widespread the problem is, but Garmin GPS
navigation devices see no road surface tag as sealed. This can
create routing stress for the driver and possibly safety issues.
Might be worth mentioning that it's far better to default tag new
roads in non urban areas as unpaved than no tag, if the surface is
unknown.<br>
</p>
<p>I use surface:fine_gravel in places. Problem is that the gravel
eventually wears off and it becomes.. unpaved! Unpaved is also
what one would use if sourcing only from overhead imagery. This
all for another discussion though.<br>
</p>
<p>Cheers Bob<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/4/22 19:43, Dian Ågesson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c1e89c94edf7048f7631a2040951b4fa@diacritic.xyz">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
We should discourage the vague surface values of "paved" and
"unpaved", instead using more specific tags like asphalt and
compacted. Can we replace the example with something more specific
than "surface=unpaved"?
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<p>surface=gravel has it's own problems given the common use in
Australia is different to the wiki description. I'm not sure
the best way to address this.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with you that we would want to encourage a more
accurate tag. From what I could see on the wiki and in overpass
queries, there is a lot of confusion about the surface tag. I
would definitely welcome this list revisiting the discussion,
but I didn't feel confident changing what was already there.</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>