[HOT] Central African Republic, use of landcover=bare_earth

[Jaakko Helleranta.com]

HMm. For some reason having
highway=track + area=yes
doesn't sound right to me.

I'll comment on the road tagging separately with a bit better time but to
me there are two problems:
- area=yes doesn't make the _area_ routable. All of your routes through
this area (with the current routing engines, that is) would go via the
boundary. .. This is not a problem for small areas. .. And the problem can
be avoided by drawing ways through the area. .. But that's what you're
trying to avoid here, right?
- for some reason I find "track" a slightly difficult area road type tag.
.. Track implies (to me) more or less rough surface and possibly 4wd_only.
While I have no idea how the surface is in the linked area it just doesn't
seem to fit well.

Did the idea of adding highway=track + area=yes to the landcover=bare_earth
come from merely the attempt to avoid drawing tracks through the area?

Just my quick thoughts,
-Jaakko
--
jaakko at helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +509-37-269154  *
http://go.hel.cc/about.me

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Filip Rosenkranc <frosenkranc at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I understand the problem - many tracks and paths going together to a space
> of bare land where they are no more recognizable.
> I have never used the tag landcover=bare_earth and couldnt find anything
> on the Taginfo either.
> I will be happy if anyone could check and share his view. The result on
> OSM is here:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=6.539969&lon=21.977844&zoom=18&layers=M
>
> Personally I think it is too much work, it will never be too precise (the
> level of greenness changess throughout the year) and it is not a priority
> in this first phase of TM mapping
>
> Sincerely
> Filip from Eurosha CAR team
>
>
>
> > I've added two instances of multipolygons for areas given the tags
> {{tag|landcover|bare_earth}} and {{tag|area|yes}}
> > in order to set apart cleared from non-cleared areas where the building
> density is low.
> > See http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2683208
> > and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2682230 .
> > I'm considering adding {{tag|access|vehicle}} to these areas so that
> they explicitly complement the highway ways which connect with them.
> > Thanks for your thoughts on this. --ceyockey
>
> _______________________________________________
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20130116/70ff4703/attachment.html>