[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability

BGNO BGNO bgno2014 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 13 11:29:56 UTC 2014


I don't think it is in general possible to derive the trafficability
information from physical models.
In cases like "flooded" it is possible because the model is very
simple and the information needed
(trafficability) can be obtained in a very simple way. The variability
of possible interpretations
of the underlying physics depends on the complexity of the physical model.

Imagine a dirt road in the mountains of say 20 kilometers length which
crosses rivers here and there.
Now, in order to know if the road can be passed, for every meter of
the road information about
smoothnes, steepness, slipperyness or whatever would have to be
tagged. Who should do that?

Another problem would be how to derive the information based on the
given data. Can navigation
software derive trafficability reliably from the given data? This
problem reminds me of a wheather
forecast. It is just not possible to do it perfectly, no matter how
powerful the computers in the
data centers are.

In contrast, if the information that the road can be passed by off
road vehicles is given by local people
then it is probably very reliable. It is not interpretation, it is experience.

So I think it makes sense to have it both: tags based on physical
models like "smoothness" or "flooded"
for simple cases and tags like "trafficability" for the rest.

Cheers,
BGNO


2014/1/6 Gerald Weber <gweberbh at gmail.com>:
> On 6 January 2014 08:16, Wolfgang Hinsch <osm-listen at ivkasogis.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am Montag, den 06.01.2014, 09:44 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO:
>> > Isn't smoothness also based on some form of interpretation?
>> >
>
>  I think that the problem lies less with the interpretation but with the
> scope of the interpretation.
>
> The smothness tag is very specific which limits the variability of the
> possible interpretations.
>
> On the other hand trafficability makes a very generic statement and as a
> consequence the interpretations may vary a lot. This is also the problem
> with the tracktype tag discussed in the other thread. It makes a very
> generic statement about the road and as such interpretations do vary
> significantly.
>
> Although I like the idea of describing the trafficability of a highway, I
> would not recommend introducing new tags which make such generic
> assessments. I think it would be better to break down the proposed
> trafficability onto more specific tags each with a narrow scope of
> interpretation.
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list