[talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

David dbannon at internode.on.net
Tue Nov 13 00:55:42 GMT 2012

Thanks Ben, I guess you have not seen the early parts of this very long thread !

1. There is already a TRAC ticket lodged requesting unsealed roads be shown as dashed or with a dashed casement. Link to it on 
. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo  I intend to add a "me too" to it as soon as I can claim some consensus.

2. tracktype is intended to do this. It misses the mark a little.

3. I suggested an extension to tracktype to achieve this end.

The advantage of tracktype is that the renderers do already use it but in a limited way. I understand that they simply cannot render every tag that pops up, if I was them, I'd look for a relatively simple concept and a widely used one. I thought tracktype plus an extension filled that role, I was wrong.


Ben Kelley <ben.kelley at gmail.com> wrote:

>My 2c.
>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
>in advance.
>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.
>  - Ben.
> 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....
>> David,
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>> "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,
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/surface_unification
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/usability
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:Sac_scale
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes
>> 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!
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121113/0eb5381b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list