[Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

vali valije at gmail.com
Thu Mar 20 23:30:23 UTC 2014


Thanks David

I don't like smoothness values either.

Problem is this key does't take in account other things that can prevent
certain type of vehicles from using that type of track. I put an example in
the last pic with a track with good surface but everything else is not so
good.

At first I saw tracktype something like a "general state of the track" but
I see it is not. I am glad I didn't tag any of those tracks with it.



2014-03-20 23:36 GMT+01:00 David Bannon <dbannon at internode.on.net>:

>
> Vali, great contribution to the discussion.
>
> The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused
> a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' !
>
> tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info
> for bike or walkers.
>
> I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are
> excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word
> "smoothness" and the assigned values. Sigh....
>
> Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its
> called "tagging for renderers", punishable by death but happens all the
> time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=.  Some evil people
> consider this fact when choosing which tag to use.
>
> Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ?  If
> promoted it could be whats needed ?
>
> David
>
>
> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >
> > I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks "the right way" but
> > after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed
> > are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here
> > are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance
> > is almost none.
> >
> >
> > I have some pics to show what I am talking about:
> >
> > http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
> > http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg
> >
> >
> > These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great,
> > but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track
> > over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be
> > eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in
> > the wiki)
> >
> > http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg
> > http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
> >
> >
> > These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller
> > and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter.
> > tracktype? surface?
> >
> > http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg
> > http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg
> >
> >
> > This kind of track is often found in places with long-time
> > settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They
> > tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is
> > smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or
> > a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just
> > gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important,
> > their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles
> > there are small tractors or motorbikes.
> >
> >
> > Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths
> > as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas.
> >
> > Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time.
> >
> > http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg
> >
> >
> > This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard
> > and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account
> > the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe?
> >
> >
> > Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the
> > "drivability" of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can
> > use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough
> > sometimes.
> >
> >
> > Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the
> > list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the
> > things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time
> > tracks are widely used.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri <lauri.kytomaa at aalto.fi>:
> >         David Bannon wrote:
> >         >"Should I use this road or not ?"
> >         > tracktype= does claim to use that approach
> >
> >
> >         It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
> >         documenting. The part about "how well maintained"
> >         on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
> >         the values. There is a connection, but tracktype
> >         wasn't meant to be about "usable or not", but about
> >         the most influential attribute of the road construction
> >         (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes),
> >         of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the
> >         conditions road users see on any ways not up to
> >         the highway standards of the present day.
> >
> >         So it's a description of a scale from "hard materials only"
> >         to "soft materials only". The connection to "maintained"
> >         is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a
> >         good approximation of the maintenance, but there can
> >         be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?)
> >         maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on
> >         exposed solid rock is "hard materials only" even if nobody
> >         ever raised a finger to "build" the way.
> >
> >         A user can deduce expectations from the combination
> >         of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and
> >         local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=*
> >         if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users.
> >
> >         There can not be anything beyond "soft materials only",
> >         that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively used
> >         the tag to describe their assessment of "should i use or
> >         not", the meaning of the tag has diverged from the
> >         use in other regions, and we'll never know which one
> >         was meant. (Luckily, there's seldom any major difference
> >         - it's probably be the rare extreme cases that can be in
> >         disagreement.)
> >
> >         If mappers want to tag a subjective "should i use it",
> >         it should be some other tag if the hard/soft materials
> >         scale doesn't suit them. But for which road user?
> >
> >         --
> >         Alv
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Tagging mailing list
> >         Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140321/07cbdfa9/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list