[talk-au] Dirt Roads
Ross Scanlon
info at 4x4falcon.com
Wed Oct 24 05:16:46 BST 2012
I'm happy for you to use that link as a reference.
I'll refrain from commenting on the remainder of that para.
When the 4wd_only tagging was introduced it was attempted to get this
included in the mapping but there was reluctance to do so.
Like most proposals it did not have a rendering proposal included and is
something that should be mandatory for all proposals. Including mapnik
xml at the very least.
Cheers
Ross
On 24/10/12 08:48, David Bannon wrote:
> 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:
> <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> 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"
> > <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list