<div dir="ltr">The dirt roads discussion in Mapnik was more about first showing that a road is unpaved, be it a primary, secondary, residential, whatever the type from the <i>surface+unpaved </i>tag. I know from watching some documentries that the furthest north highway in the United Sates in Alaska, is dirt and gravel, but is considered a highway with 18 wheelers etc on it.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:58 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:talk-request@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-request@openstreetmap.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send talk mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-owner@openstreetmap.org">talk-owner@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM<br>
(Martin Koppenhoefer)<br>
2. Re: Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM (Maarten Deen)<br>
3. Tracking user activity in an area (was: Making iD the default<br>
editor on <a href="http://osm.org" target="_blank">osm.org</a> - some numbers) (SomeoneElse)<br>
4. Re: Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM (Lester Caine)<br>
5. Re: Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM<br>
(Martin Koppenhoefer)<br>
6. Re: Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM<br>
(Martin Koppenhoefer)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:41:20 +0200<br>
From: Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Pieren <<a href="mailto:pieren3@gmail.com">pieren3@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: OpenStreetMap Talk Mailing List <<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CABPTjTDh9Nbcxh63=QcUBXtQ5mUHchOP_TO=<a href="mailto:pPwe49x6LdbSXw@mail.gmail.com">pPwe49x6LdbSXw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
2013/8/26 Pieren <<a href="mailto:pieren3@gmail.com">pieren3@gmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
> A highway=track + tracktype=grade1 can be<br>
> safely used by normal cars.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
technically yes, legally it depends<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Perhaps in Germany, all tracks have limited access.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
no, it depends on the area. In some regions it is true (AFAIK only in<br>
Baden-W?rttemberg = BaW?)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> But they all have<br>
> traffic signs indicating the restriction(s).<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
no, apparently in BaW? there is a general restriction which doesn't have to<br>
be signposted.<br>
<br>
But I think this direction of discussion misses the point. The point was<br>
how to classify certain types of roads (unpaved connection and residential<br>
roads). tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural (i.e. local<br>
traffic of who works in the fields or forests or goes fishing) traffic. If<br>
there are other reasons for a road to be (i.e. connection for "ordinary"<br>
traffic, access to a plant or other technical installation) the highway<br>
class should be chosen differently. A residential road can well be unpaved<br>
in some parts of Germany as well, but that doesn't make it a track. In<br>
remote zones in Italy there are provincial roads (i.e. roads of the network<br>
maintained by the provinces) that aren't paved and are so narrow that 2<br>
cars only at some spots can pass, but that doesn't make them a track.<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Martin<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130826/9c2164bb/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130826/9c2164bb/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:54:13 +0200<br>
From: Maarten Deen <<a href="mailto:mdeen@xs4all.nl">mdeen@xs4all.nl</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:a2e827e7c9573495d5e6470801883e14@xs4all.nl">a2e827e7c9573495d5e6470801883e14@xs4all.nl</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 2013-08-26 14:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
<br>
> tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural<br>
> (i.e. local traffic of who works in the fields or forests or goes<br>
> fishing) traffic.<br>
<br>
How do you know that without any signs next to the road?<br>
<br>
Maarten<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:14:11 +0100<br>
From: SomeoneElse <<a href="mailto:lists@mail.atownsend.org.uk">lists@mail.atownsend.org.uk</a>><br>
To: Steve Bennett <<a href="mailto:stevagewp@gmail.com">stevagewp@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: Open Street Map mailing list <<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: [OSM-talk] Tracking user activity in an area (was: Making iD<br>
the default editor on <a href="http://osm.org" target="_blank">osm.org</a> - some numbers)<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:521B54A3.8090702@mail.atownsend.org.uk">521B54A3.8090702@mail.atownsend.org.uk</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"<br>
<br>
Steve Bennett wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
> Just wondering what tools you use to "keep an eye on" that area? I'd<br>
> love to have a better idea of what other editors are doing in my area.<br>
<br>
For new users, it's similar to Martin, although via the map rather than<br>
the RSS feed.<br>
<br>
For me it's essentially:<br>
<a href="http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/newestosm.php?zoom=9&lat=53.15754&lon=-1.58752&layers=0B0TFT" target="_blank">http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/newestosm.php?zoom=9&lat=53.15754&lon=-1.58752&layers=0B0TFT</a><br>
<br>
but concentrating on areas that I'm familiar with, and ignoring areas<br>
where other more local mappers keep an eye on things (e.g. the W Mids).<br>
<br>
I tend to follow this<br>
<<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/new_mapper_messages" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/new_mapper_messages</a>> when<br>
sending messages to new mappers (essentially give people time to figure<br>
out how to do stuff in OSM, try and be forgiving and try and be helpful).<br>
<br>
For actually seeing when "X has edited in Y" I use the usual tools such<br>
as "WhoDidIt" and ITO World's "OSM Mapper" (see here<br>
<<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_assurance" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_assurance</a>>), and also a bit<br>
of java to help determine when large-scale edits actually affect me,<br>
which I've stuck here:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Changeset1/blob/master/src/Changeset1.java" target="_blank">https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Changeset1/blob/master/src/Changeset1.java</a><br>
<br>
That also looks for way deletions and versions of ways (at some point in<br>
the changeset - not necessarily at the end) without tags.<br>
<br>
A related process takes the list of new mappers who haven't quite got<br>
the hang of things yet and appends something to the name of items in the<br>
Garmin maps that I create for my own use, so that if I'm near somewhere<br>
which has, for example, a footpath that doesn't quite join a road I can<br>
check whether it actually does or not.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130826/2833b0c5/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130826/2833b0c5/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:34:59 +0100<br>
From: Lester Caine <<a href="mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk">lester@lsces.co.uk</a>><br>
Cc: OpenStreetMap Talk Mailing List <<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:521B5983.7080301@lsces.co.uk">521B5983.7080301@lsces.co.uk</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
> But I think this direction of discussion misses the point. The point was how to<br>
> classify certain types of roads (unpaved connection and residential roads).<br>
> tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural (i.e. local traffic of who<br>
> works in the fields or forests or goes fishing) traffic. If there are other<br>
> reasons for a road to be (i.e. connection for "ordinary" traffic, access to a<br>
> plant or other technical installation) the highway class should be chosen<br>
> differently. A residential road can well be unpaved in some parts of Germany as<br>
> well, but that doesn't make it a track. In remote zones in Italy there are<br>
> provincial roads (i.e. roads of the network maintained by the provinces) that<br>
> aren't paved and are so narrow that 2 cars only at some spots can pass, but that<br>
> doesn't make them a track.<br>
<br>
This was part of the discussion on tracks and paths at the time. My own reason<br>
for wanting to distinguish what I will call 'unclassified' which do not have a<br>
tidy surface or are 'residential' or 'service' which require care is that there<br>
should be a clear demarcation between roads that are generally safe to pass and<br>
those which may not be appropriate in some circumstances. Personally I was<br>
caught out with an older satnav showing no change when going from a main A road<br>
to what was essentially a 'dirt track' ( at that time not even a colour change )<br>
... it was still a perfectly legal road and there were warnings about single<br>
track with passing places, but I might have preferred to re-route if I was<br>
towing and I was already committed by the time the signage appeared. I think the<br>
real point is passing on the information that while a road may be part of the<br>
normal transport network, some may be less than suitable in some circumstances!<br>
Simply tagging 'unclassified' and merging with roads which are simply<br>
unmaintained by the local council while valid does not easily pass on important<br>
information while personally I feel these are 'tracks' and need to be tagged as<br>
such! It is different rendering that is the point here ... and iD is making this<br>
even more problematic by rendering everything with very similar styles even for<br>
footpaths!<br>
<br>
( And this discussion should probably be on the tagging list, but I've still not<br>
added that to my catalogue )<br>
<br>
--<br>
Lester Caine - G8HFL<br>
-----------------------------<br>
Contact - <a href="http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact" target="_blank">http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact</a><br>
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - <a href="http://lsces.co.uk" target="_blank">http://lsces.co.uk</a><br>
EnquirySolve - <a href="http://enquirysolve.com/" target="_blank">http://enquirysolve.com/</a><br>
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - <a href="http://medw.co.uk" target="_blank">http://medw.co.uk</a><br>
Rainbow Digital Media - <a href="http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk" target="_blank">http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:50:59 +0200<br>
From: Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Maarten Deen <<a href="mailto:mdeen@xs4all.nl">mdeen@xs4all.nl</a>><br>
Cc: osm <<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CABPTjTAOc7P_Hw4frb4KWEsUTgnGBhqWSZHoh4JyT6Ro%2BcVBRg@mail.gmail.com">CABPTjTAOc7P_Hw4frb4KWEsUTgnGBhqWSZHoh4JyT6Ro+cVBRg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
2013/8/26 Maarten Deen <<a href="mailto:mdeen@xs4all.nl">mdeen@xs4all.nl</a>><br>
<br>
> On 2013-08-26 14:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
><br>
> tracks are a type of road set up for agricultural<br>
>> (i.e. local traffic of who works in the fields or forests or goes<br>
>> fishing) traffic.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> How do you know that without any signs next to the road?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
the relevant passage is ? 3 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 of "Stra?engesetz f?r<br>
Baden-W?rttemberg" and various comments I found all point out that despite<br>
"usually" there will be signs the restriction will also be valid in absence<br>
of signs. My guess is you will have to know by "common sense". I agree that<br>
this is not completely satisfactory.<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Martin<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130826/eb0508ba/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130826/eb0508ba/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:58:02 +0200<br>
From: Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Lester Caine <<a href="mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk">lester@lsces.co.uk</a>>, "Tag discussion, strategy and<br>
related tools" <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Cc: OpenStreetMap Talk Mailing List <<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Dirt Roads in Mapnik, default render in OSM<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CABPTjTBPLMs%2BajPyAUBVfoCJc5RR-Kydi9r7RBg9ztbxjxXi7A@mail.gmail.com">CABPTjTBPLMs+ajPyAUBVfoCJc5RR-Kydi9r7RBg9ztbxjxXi7A@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
2013/8/26 Lester Caine <<a href="mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk">lester@lsces.co.uk</a>><br>
<br>
> This was part of the discussion on tracks and paths at the time.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
AFAIK that distinction was always made by width (or width for the<br>
access-points, e.g. if they are blocked by boulders you won't be able to go<br>
there by car anyway)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> My own reason for wanting to distinguish what I will call 'unclassified'<br>
> which do not have a tidy surface or are 'residential' or 'service' which<br>
> require care is that there should be a clear demarcation between roads that<br>
> are generally safe to pass and those which may not be appropriate in some<br>
> circumstances.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
many roads in Europe might not be safe to pass in the winter time (or some<br>
might not be safe to pass in the summer time, see "winter road" discussion<br>
from the Russians). This doesn't make them less "public roads"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Personally I was caught out with an older satnav showing no change when<br>
> going from a main A road to what was essentially a 'dirt track' ( at that<br>
> time not even a colour change ) ... it was still a perfectly legal road and<br>
> there were warnings about single track with passing places, but I might<br>
> have preferred to re-route if I was towing and I was already committed by<br>
> the time the signage appeared. I think the real point is passing on the<br>
> information that while a road may be part of the normal transport network,<br>
> some may be less than suitable in some circumstances!<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
yes, but there are other tags to use than the highway class that can<br>
express in greater detail what might be the problem (e.g. surface, width,<br>
smoothness, lanes, ...)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Simply tagging 'unclassified' and merging with roads which are simply<br>
> unmaintained by the local council while valid does not easily pass on<br>
> important information while personally I feel these are 'tracks' and need<br>
> to be tagged as such!<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
what about adding unmaintained=yes?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> It is different rendering that is the point here<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
yes and no. Yes, the rendering should preferably distinguish between paved<br>
and unpaved roads, and no, the highway class should not be chosen by the<br>
rendering rules of a certain style.<br>
<br>
( And this discussion should probably be on the tagging list, but I've<br>
still not added that to my catalogue )<br>
<br>
<br>
+1, crossposted to tagging, please lets continue there<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Martin<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130826/a98b6257/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130826/a98b6257/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of talk Digest, Vol 108, Issue 56<br>
*************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>"Have Bike will Travel"<br><a href="http://thebikeandmore.blogspot.com/">http://thebikeandmore.blogspot.com/</a>
</div>