[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability

[David Bannon]

BGNO, you have been following the "Tags useful for rendering of roads in
poor conditions" thread started by Fernando on this same list haven't
you ?

I have created a summary page on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Davo

We hope to reach a consensus on what seems pretty close to what you are
asking. Maybe you would like to chip in ? These things always work a bit
better if you have a lot of people around you ....

David 

On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:29 +0100, BGNO BGNO wrote:
> 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.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging