[talk-au] Dirt Roads

Nathan Van Der Meulen natvander at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 21 21:53:09 BST 2012


Hi David

Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within a product).  Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some more detail.  We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due to software restrictions and other difficulties.  But we are certainly trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done.  Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc.  


Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example.  In fact there are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite poor condition.  Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf.

Nathan






________________________________
 From: "talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org" <talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org>
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
 
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
    talk-au at openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson)
   2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson)
   3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White)
   4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
   5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) (dbannon at internode.on.net)
   6. Re: dirt roads (dbannon at internode.on.net)
   7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100
From: John Henderson <snowgum at gmx.com>
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
Message-ID: <50836615.5000509 at gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote:

> It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants
> tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only
> a single lane.   I.E. when there are LESS than one in each
> direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds.
>
> Any thoughts?

I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass.  Exceptional
conditions should be flagged as appropriate.

But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass
should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment.  Caravaners are
especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as
are truck drivers.

The width or est_width tags from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in
most such circumstances.

John



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100
From: John Henderson <snowgum at gmx.com>
To: dbannon at internode.on.net
Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <50836804.1010002 at gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 21/10/12 13:28, dbannon at internode.on.net wrote:
> OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest
> too!)
>
> I  use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough
> for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both
> need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for
> overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of
> caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.

That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible.
I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short
sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock
face on the other.

Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
"access:caravan=unsuitable"

John




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100
From: Matt White <mattwhite at iinet.com.au>
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <50836D2E.8020408 at iinet.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, dbannon at internode.on.net wrote:
>
> Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones !
>
> I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly, 
> because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the 
> wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map 
> data ends up being looked at.
>
> As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, 
> I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way 
> to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you 
> are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>
In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render 
the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or 
Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC).

The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD only' to 
the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have anything.

I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of information 
- often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but 
perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is navigable in a 
2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so once you 
are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those 
instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important requirement.

Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are 
dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the 
Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA.

Matt



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:54:03 +1100
From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com>
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <508371DB.1040700 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 21/10/12 13:35, dbannon at internode.on.net wrote:
>
> As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, 
> I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way 
> to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you 
> are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !

Personally, I would find a tag

4x4_only=no
source:4x4_only=survey

Would be a great tag on a dirt road.  In means that someone has surveyed 
it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.

Ian.



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:27:57 +1030
From: dbannon at internode.on.net
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
Message-ID:
    <d098e8dd6603a181d67df3d0657cc779d2a18015 at webmail.internode.on.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

?

Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement every
one is ! Thanks folks !? If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary
in a few days.

> From: "Nathan Van Der Meulen" 

> Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make
it any less important than many others.

Far from it, I live on a dirt road !

>? David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some
...pass a few Falcons and Commodores), 
Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had
a broken rear axle.

> it is in fact a NT state highway ....
Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both
the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag.

> ....These just need to have their additional tags like
surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc.
Exactly! But we need to see those tags used.

  > I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map
rendering 
Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ?

> highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection
purpose
Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but
its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and
file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4.

> For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads
tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads
tagged 4wd_only
Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any
interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats
the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface=
but it does not show up on the maps most people see.
Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and
4x4_only=recommended ?

Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input.

David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/a8e82711/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:35:53 +1030
From: dbannon at internode.on.net
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID:
    <76a49564ab98ef63a11946c0f882229237c84ac9 at webmail.internode.on.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

?

Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ?
Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I
suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already
in the database would need to be updated.

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Sergeant" 

Personally, I would find a tag

4x4_only=no
source:4x4_only=survey

Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has
surveyed 
it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/08ae6bea/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:17:15 +1100
From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com>
To: dbannon at internode.on.net
Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID:
    <CALDa4YKmjJSOesT18u7pUev31vD6-hdXnWvycv7W3-r-ydJ=AA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 21 October 2012 16:05,  <dbannon at internode.on.net> wrote:

> Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of
> the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default
> is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to
> change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to
> be updated.

Not at all.  It is the correct default situation, of course, that a
4x4 is not required.  However a good survey of roads that are remote
should consider including additional detail on the road surface.

Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no
guarantee that a 4x4 is not required.  4x4_only=no is a useful
observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations).

I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not required
on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the
default, so the tag is useless.  Or worse still, does a selection for
all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis.

Ian.



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/890c6aff/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list