[talk-au] Dirt Roads

David Bannon dbannon at internode.on.net
Tue Oct 23 23:48:44 BST 2012


Ross, thats pretty cool.

My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki
and then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's
slippery map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all
expected it to be do-able but nice to have it confirmed.

Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ?  I must admit I
don't know just how good the relationship between fosm and osm is ?

David 

----- Original Message -----
From: info at 4x4falcon.com
To:
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:20:56 +1000
Subject:Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads

 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"
 > 
 > *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.openstreetmaporg/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 openstreetmaporg 
 >
 > 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 
 > To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org 
 > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
 > Message-ID: 
 > 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 
 > To: dbannon at internode.on.net 
 > Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org 
 > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
 > Message-ID: 
 > 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 
 > To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org 
 > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
 > Message-ID:  >
 > 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 
 > To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org 
 > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
 > Message-ID: 
 > 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:
 >  >
 > 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:
 > 
 >
 > ------------------------------
 >
 > 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:
 >  >
 > 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:
 > 
 >
 > ------------------------------
 >
 > Message: 7
 > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:17:15 +1100
 > From: Ian Sergeant 
 > To: dbannon at internode.on.net 
 > Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org 
 > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
 > Message-ID:
 >  >
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 >
 > On 21 October 2012 16:05,  > 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
 > ***************************************
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Talk-au mailing list
 > Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
 > http://lists.openstreetmaporg/listinfo/talk-au

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121024/2d073ef6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list