[talk-au] Dirt Roads

[Ross Scanlon]

Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.

An example of 4wd_only=yes here:

http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14&lat=-20.73023&lon=116.99701&layers=B0F

The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows "4WD Recommended".

It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this 
and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed.

Cheers
Ross


On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
> <mailto:dbannon at internode.on.net>)
> 6. Re: dirt roads (dbannon at internode.on.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:snowgum at gmx.com>>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
> Message-ID: <50836615.5000509 at gmx.com <mailto: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 <mailto:snowgum at gmx.com>>
> To: dbannon at internode.on.net <mailto:dbannon at internode.on.net>
> Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <50836804.1010002 at gmx.com <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:mattwhite at iinet.com.au>>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <50836D2E.8020408 at iinet.com.au
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:osm at gmail.com>>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <508371DB.1040700 at gmail.com <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:dbannon at internode.on.net>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
> Message-ID:
> <d098e8dd6603a181d67df3d0657cc779d2a18015 at webmail.internode.on.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:dbannon at internode.on.net>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID:
> <76a49564ab98ef63a11946c0f882229237c84ac9 at webmail.internode.on.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:osm at gmail.com>>
> To: dbannon at internode.on.net <mailto:dbannon at internode.on.net>
> Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID:
> <CALDa4YKmjJSOesT18u7pUev31vD6-hdXnWvycv7W3-r-ydJ=AA at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:AA at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 21 October 2012 16:05, <dbannon at internode.on.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au