[talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
ben.kelley at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 23:48:03 GMT 2012
It seems like there are a few issues here:
1 - The current mapnik style does not identify unpaved roads at all.
2 - For an unpaved road, the quality of the surface can vary a lot, and it
would be good to have a way to tag this.
3 - Some roads require a 4WD. This can be a legal requirement, or just
common sense based on the surface. If you need a 4WD, you want to know this
While these are all related, maybe addressing them separately is the way to
Starting with 1 would be a good change simply using surface=unpaved. A trac
ticket would be the way to go. Suggest a dashed style in some way.
For 2, this is tricky, as this will be subjective at some level. It seems
it might be hard to get agreement on a way to do this.
Obviously 2 relates to 3. Maybe start with a rendering change for roads
that need 4WD legally (using existing tags), and work on defining a way to
handle when 4x4 is advisable.
On Nov 13, 2012 10:32 AM, "David Bannon" <dbannon at internode.on.net> wrote:
> OK, I have to recognise that my "proposed proposal" is not attracting any
> support. So I will walk away. However, that leaves the problem unsolved and
> , I still think, dangerously so.
> Are there any alternatives folks ? Should we (ie in Australia) encourage
> people to use smoothness= for example ? I hate the tag name and the values
> associated with it but maybe its the only game in town ? There are already
> considerably more horrible, very_horrible and impassable values set against
> smoothness than 4wd_Only tags and by a considerable factor. It does offer
> a degree of "fine grain" against 4wd_only's 'yes' or not there.
> However, (eg) OSM website map ignores smoothness= (unlike tracktype) but
> that may be becuse not enough people are complaining about it. But I must
> say, I would not feel anywhere near as confident asking renderers about
> smoothness= as I would about an extended tracktype=.
> Please consider....
> ----- Original Message -----
> "Andrew Harvey" <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> > This is a complete failure of the cartography and if it represented
> > unpaved vs paved as dotted casing then I would have been prepared and
> > expecting the surface change along the road.
> Indeed, but as long as mappers present the renderers with a mismash of
> data, we can expect no better !
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
> No, I don't really think my proposal fits into this catagory, but it does
> take a more pragmatic view than many OSMs would. I understand it may well
> be too pragmatic !
> > I think your extension proposal make is more complicated as it is
> > unclear what the scale represents since it isn't a linear scale for one
> > attribute.
> well, in that case, I think I have failed. My plan was always to seek the
> simplest way through a very complicated maze. If its still not simple
> enough, so be it !
> > .... We have,
> Only useful use of surface= is unpaved. I have tried and failed with
> tracktype=, the 'proposed' ones mentioned above are all either abandonded
> or should be. mtb is about mountain bikes and so on. we are really not
> addressing this problem folks !
> > Although this issue does affect Australia due to the nature of the
> > outback, it is a global issue. I think it would be best to take your
> > thoughts to the global tagging list at let the discussion happen there.
> No, to be realistic, if I cannot get any support here in Oz, little hope
> of doing so elsewhere.
> Sorry about any awkard editing here, using an android device as I am away
> and left my laptop powersupply at home!
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au