[talk-au] dirt roads

Nathan Van Der Meulen natvander at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 23 12:31:00 BST 2012


Unfortunately i can't find my original comments on tracks and 4wd_only, but I'll concede that highway=track doesn't necessarily mean 4wd_only=yes.

I don't like 4wd_only=no because many tracks that may be used by 2wds can rapidly deteriorate to a 4wd track and, as previously mentioned, weather can change everything.  I know forestry roads that are definitely classed as "touristy" roads but, add a bit of rain and keep the grader away for a while and that road is pretty rough in a 4wd.  No tag leaves the onus on the user to use his/her own discretion.  There's also the problem of what type of 2wd.  Yeah i know I'm picking at this but I've heard the comments from the knuckleheads.  A Falcon is a 2wd - as is a Kia Carnival and a Jag and a Ferrari.  Does 2wd_only mean all those?  No tag = up to the driver to work it out.


Nathan




________________________________
 From: "talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org" <talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org>
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:00 PM
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 20
 
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. dirt roads - a summary (David Bannon)
   2. Re: dirt roads - a summary (Ian Sergeant)
   3. Re: dirt roads - a summary (Mark Pulley)
   4. Re: dirt roads - a summary (John Henderson)


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

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:39:53 +1030
From: "David Bannon" <dbannon at internode.on.net>
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
Message-ID:
    <38c3ab4655c281ac64279a1e5bb9cf80e7083290 at webmail.internode.on.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Folks, a summary of discussion on dirt roads before I hack at the
discussion tab of Australian_Road_Tagging. Seems to me two issues not
completely clear -

1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I
don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight,
we need to use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats
what 4x4_only tag is for. Whats the feeling here folks ?

2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked
4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's
appropriate. Particularly in places where there may be some assumption
that the tracks are often pretty tough. I am not completely convinced,
see two problems, it does, to some extent, change the idea that
default is 'no'. Secondly, importantly, tracks change over time and
people opinions on what is and is not a 4x4 track vary. Saying "you
will be OK in a conventional car" is a lot stronger statement than
"you might/will need a 4x4". Comments please ?

At present, mainstream rendering? emphasizes the purpose of a road.
Trouble is that (possibly uninformed) people look at the maps and
assume a thick prominent line means a well maintained, probably sealed
road.

I think there is some agreement that a means of showing the "4x4-ness"
of a track on the mainstream (ie mapnik) maps is desirable and
possibly a safety issue. The best way to show this might be to append
"4x4" to the name of tracks where 4x4_only is set to yes or
recommended (Matt).? 

Similarly, showing sealed/unsealed may also be a good idea.

I note that if you look at the slippery map on osm.org, click Map Key
at a zoomed in level there is a key for "unsealed road", a thick grey
dashed line. I spent an hour looking for an example of that on
Australian and overseas maps but found none. But thats what we want
??? 

If we are to have even the slightest chance of getting changes in this
space, it will be because we all agree and play the safety card !

I will clarify lanes=1 where two cars cannot pass at 'normal' speed
(Paul, John). And no lanes= tag for default situation.

I will also suggest that survey is probably required for tracks, sat
or aerial sources risk missing things like water crossing or gates
that completely change the nature of the whole road. A safety issue
again.

David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/0082fee5/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:08:18 +1100
From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com>
To: David Bannon <dbannon at internode.on.net>
Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
Message-ID:
    <CALDa4YLTFkUx7kx6O3YwnsSO69vTSs+9zzrnO7yFuH_TcACJ1w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 23 October 2012 11:09, David Bannon <dbannon at internode.on.net> wrote:

> 2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked
> 4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's appropriate.
> Particularly in places where there may be some assumption that the tracks
> are often pretty tough. I am not completely convinced
> ...

This is OSM.  A missing tag can mean that someone has considered it
and decided the default value is appropriate, or it can mean that no
one has cast their mind to it.

Where there is a possibility of confusion, or something out of the
ordinary, then I tag and leave notes for future mappers, so they can
improve on it.  I think this is Good Mapping, and at worst Does No
Harm.  If you think it is too, then do the same.  If you don't, then
don't, it isn't compulsory.   Just don't remove tags others consider
useful (unless, of course, they are factually wrong).

Ian.



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

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:42:18 +1100
From: Mark Pulley <mrpulley at lizzy.com.au>
To: OSM - Talk-au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
Message-ID: <4A4B6FB1-FA21-4B54-89C5-C9FE1642995D at lizzy.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On 23/10/2012, at 11:09 AM, David Bannon wrote:

> 1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight, we need to use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats what 4x4_only tag is for. Whats the feeling here folks ?

Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not be implied by highway=track.

Mark P.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/4fe2b26e/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:53:40 +1100
From: John Henderson <snowgum at gmx.com>
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
Message-ID: <508630E4.2020301 at gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 23/10/12 15:42, Mark Pulley wrote:
>
> Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely
> drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS
> trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not
> be implied by highway=track.

Seconded, from similar experience.  I hasten to add that wet weather
might make ANY unpaved road impassable in places, but tracks likely more so.

Any experienced driver will understand that.  We can't begin to think
that we can keep everyone out of trouble by adding a few tags to OSM.

John



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

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


End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 20
***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/2991744c/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list