[Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

[Warin]

On 24/09/2014 1:27 AM, tagging-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:43:07 +0200 From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related 
> tools" <tagging at openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] New key 
> proposal - paved=yes/no Message-ID: 
> <CABPTjTD7KBdbxZs9p8kz-AnRnB-D9g91d3hK1TfmsNK+dmhKnA at mail.gmail.com> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 2014-09-23 1:12 GMT+02:00 
> David Bannon <dbannon at internode.on.net>:

> here we are on the tagging mailing list, to discuss tagging of objects 
> in the OSM database. With current tags it is indeed possible to say 
> whether a road is paved or not according to your own definition. The 
> fact that a particular rendering (carto osm) doesn't currently display 
> the paved attribute of a road has nothing to do when the question is 
> whether current tagging works or not. In fact, the maintainers of 
> carto osm have recently been discussing how to display unpaved roads 
> differently from paved ones, so this could come in the future. This is 
> really not an argument for the introduction of a new tag. cheers, 
> Martin -------------- next part

> Message: 3 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:54:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard 
> Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> To: Tagging at openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no Message-ID: 
> <1411484083204-5818261.post at n5.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; 
> charset=us-ascii David Bannon wrote:
>> The truth is the paved/unpaved state of a road is being widely
>> ignored or incorrectly interpreted. The map at osm.org illustrates
>> my point, perhaps as well as an XKCD cartoon :-)
> Yep, absolutely. But the way to fix that is to get the map at osm.org to
> render surfaces, using the existing tags. (And I agree, that would be a
> great enhancement.)
>
> I was about to point you to
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 but then I
> noticed that you're all over it already. :)
>
> cheers
> Richard
>

One more point against that I have not seen (yet)  ..  with this 
additional tag you can get conflicts e.g.

Paved=yes
Surface=Unpaved

Oh .. you want to exclude paved/unpaved from surface? Ok, then we get

Paved=yes
Surface=sand

As per Peewee post - the definition of 'paved' vs 'unpaved' is open to 
interpretation. But I don't think anyone would accept 'sand' as being 
'paved'?

Some might consider 'gravel' to be 'paved' .. most won't. It is an 
improvement over say sand, but then any track is an improvement over 
virgin territory. Much better to get the detail of the surface. I do tag 
surface=unpaved where the surface is made up of multiple things - one 
length would be sand, another dirt .. and probably some bits of 
bulldust, gibber and salt lake. Where it is substantially on type then 
I'll put that surface down. Then the renderer can decide what is 'paved' 
... anything else (including unknowns) should be classified as 'unpaved' 
... this is the safe way as more people selecting paved may not be able 
to use unpaved .. where as those selecting unpaved would be capable of 
using paved. (And as points out it is a rendering/routing problem that 
should be addressed by them, not the taggers).

Suggest the proposal is retracted, and other courses taken to rectify 
this issue?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140924/8fc83a1c/attachment.html>