Interlug wrote: <blockquote cite="midccdb57d0701101110n895a97cn133f4a50ee972f79@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 1/10/07, Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_@hotmail.com> wrote:<br><br></pre> <blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">1)<br><br>Road widths: This has been discussed beforeish, Im not really fussed how<br>its tagged, but any suggestion would be appreiciated, otherwise I shall tag<br>them as highwaytype=type1/2/3/4.*. This is a way of splitting up the<br>varing width variations of the small roads that are otherwise tagged the<br>same (unclassified).<br><br>*Additional to highway=unclassified, (and streetlight=yes, catseyes=yes if<br>nessesery)<br><br>1=Road with Room for Normal viecles going in each direction to drive past<br>each other normally<br>2=Roads where cars can pass but will usually slow down, and/or move to one<br>side of the road. Usually they lack road markings in the UK<br>3=Roads where 1 of the cars would need to drive up onto to
grass/sand/mud on<br>the side of the road<br>4=Roads where the road edge stops easy passing and 1 of the 2 cars would<br>have to reverse to a passing spot. Walls/enbanked edges/ditches/sinking<br>sand etcetc along the edge.<br></pre></blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----><br>Is this new?<br>Is this the same thing that you were talking about earlier? I thought<br>you were talking about additional classifications for tracks only, now<br>I see unclassified mentioned above. Did I miss that the first time<br>around?<br><br>If you're talking about tracks<br>highway="motorway" variations can be classified with the existing<br>lanes="#" tag. Can lanes= and surface= give you what you seek? Does<br>highway="track", lanes="0.5", surface="grass and gravel" tell you that<br>passing requires caution?<br><br>Why 1/2/3/4 ?<br>If these tracks can't be distinguished to your satisfaction with<br>highway="track", lanes="0.5", surface="grass and gravel" or similar<br>why would you choose to
classify them with a code number (1/2/3/4)<br>rather than something more descriptive? I don't know what you would<br>consider acceptable for a descriptive value but how about<br>"pass_with_caution" "use_passing_areas" or<br>"if_there_is_oncoming_traffic_you're_finished".<br><br>On a personal note, Ben. I would support your proposal if it made<br>sense to me but I just don't understand it. It is not a matter of<br>saying to myself "I don't think I'd use it, so I won't vote for it."<br>I don't understand what it is for. When I try to imagine how I would<br>use your proposal above, I can not think of a group of public roads<br>that need to be distinguished in the way that I imagine you are<br>suggesting.<br><br>Is this proposal intended to distinguish between different tracks on<br>private property? To show differing amounts of use on a farm or<br>something? Help me understand.<br><br></pre> </blockquote> I tend to map quite a lot of country tracks and agree that some
additional methods of tagging them would be useful. Mostly for me I think this comes down to what sort of vehicle is required for using them, along the lines of;<br> <br> 1) suitable for any vehicle<br> 2) 4x4 required<br> 3) only suitable for agricultural / construction vehicles (+ bike and foot).<br> <br> The 'lanes' tag sounds quite a good way of differentiating between the width of tracks e.g.:<br> lanes=2 passing easy<br> lanes=1.5 passing tricky<br> lanes=1 passing is a real pain<br> <br> but I'm not sure about 'surface'. Not only can the surface regularly change on a track (grass -> mud -> dirt -> gravel -> roughly surfaced), it also is not necessarily relevant. For example I don't care whether a track is gravel or dirt or grass etc. All I want to know is if I drive my car down it am I liable to have problems. I know there are some tags that say what vehicles are permitted on the road, but I would prefer to avoid these as they are not representative -
e.g. cars are technically allowed, it's just that you probably won't get very far in one. <br> <br> One option could be something like 'condition' / 'suitability' etc. , e.g.<br> <br> /** suitable for most vehicles - passing is restricted **/ <br> highway=track<br> lanes=1.5<br> condition=good<br> <br> /** a nice wide track, but only suitable for 4x4, agricultural etc. **/<br> highway=track<br> lanes=2<br> condition=medium<br> <br> Unfortunately this could all gets somewhat subjective - although I'm not sure if this is an argument for more or less specific guidelines. <br> <br> It's also worth pointing out that most regional maps I've seen tend to have 2 levels of track, generally a solid gray line for tracks which are unpaved but suitable for most vehicles and dotted gray lines for tracks which require >= 4x4. while I don't advocate blindly following what commercial companies do, the fact that other organistions differentiate between the 2 shows that there is
certainly an issue to be debated.<br> <br> Tim<br> <br> <p>
<hr size=1>
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the <a href="http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/championships/games/*http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk/">Yahoo! Mail Championships</a>. Plus: play games and win prizes.