[Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

[malenki]

Am Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:09:59 -0200
schrieb Gerald Weber <gweberbh at gmail.com>:

> malenki wrote
>> Gerald Weber wrote
> > So these two roads you'd consider the same?:
> > http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_20/slide_19.html

(btw: sorry for me having been a little polemic)

> Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as
> highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is
> in use and what it connects (I cannot determine this from pictures
> alone) with surface=dirt or surface=ground.

It is a road connecting some villages in the back country, only
manageable with real offroad vehicles or by horse/mule/bicycle/foot.

> > http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_22/slide_34.html
> 
> 
> I would probably tag this as highway=tertiary (it seems an important
> road, large enough to be passable by two cars) with surface=gravel or
> surface=ground. Again, apart from the Humanitarian rendering style,
> there is no way to see the difference between a highway=tertiary with
> surface=unpaved from one with surface=paved.

As I travelled this road the first time it was in the state you see it
on the picture. Partly construction works were going on, but traffic
was in full flow. I mapped it as highway=primary (having a tendency
towards motor road) ; this year I could see that construction works had
continued and some more parts were asphalted. 
The road is wide enough for at least three cars passing each other.

The images are geotagged so you can either use a browser plugin or JOSM
to see their context.

> This is the reason I am saying that rendering paved differently from
> unpaved would be a huge improvement and would address most of our
> concerns. Agreed, it would not solve everything, but it would be a
> huge step forward compared to the present situation.

+1

> > > Finally, I can assure you, from my own driving experience, that
> > > surface=compacted should be considered unpaved for all practical
> > > purposes.
> >
> > I disagree here, too. Though compacted is not as good as asphalt, it
> > is much better then an unpaved way with surface=dirt.
>
> It seems that we do not have the same concept of  what
> surface=compacted actually means. 

Obviously

> This is the reason I am suggesting a complementary tag
> surface:sealed=yes or perhaps surface:stable=yes to differentiate the
> different situations.
> 
> I can assure you that after a few weeks of non-stop torrential rain no
> surface stays compacted (at least not here in Brazil).

With enough water you get any road broken:
http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_16/slide_27.html
(highway of an international route officially closed but inofficially
still frequented)

Roads deserving really the description of being "compacted" should be
constructed this way (IMO): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadam There
they are described as free-draining - I sure would like to know if the
Brazilian roads you describe are made this way or are a cheaper version.
But when it is obvious that this type of road won't last the weather -
why is it sill there (from interpolating what you said)?

I also know tracks onto which enough gravel was thrown and after enough
vehicles went over it you can describe them as compacted - as long, as
not too much rain shows up.