[talk-au] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

Ben Kelley ben.kelley at gmail.com
Sun Sep 21 23:29:51 UTC 2014


My experience is that surface can have descriptive values that don't
immediately indicate if the road is paved or not.

Things like "asphalt" (presuming paved=yes) and "gravel" (presuming
paved=no) are common.

  - Ben Kelley
 On 22 Sep 2014 09:24, "Warin" <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Tagging for the render?
>
> You can have surface=paved or surface =unpaved! More detailes options are
> also avalible.
>
> The argument on the routing not using the right method for determining its
> route should be adressed to the router! Not patched to 'fix' the routers
> problem. The router should descriminate on the surfaces its finds actptable
> rather than ones it thinks are unaceptable. e.g. for paved it should acept
> surface = paved, concrete, asphalt ... is that just too hard?!  I'm
> assuming cobblestones are unaceptable.. but if in France then they would be
> aceptable .. some of their 'main' roads are cobblestones ...
>
> My vote would be 'No'. As surface provides the information .. in some
> cases in more detail but the grouping into paved and unpaved is
> resasonable.
>
>
>
> On 21/09/2014 12:25 PM, Ben Kelley wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> This sounds like a very good suggestion. Often you just want to know if
> the road is paved.
>
> It seems like that was the original intent of surface=, but that is not
> how it gets used now.
>
> How surface= implies paved= sounds good too.
>
>    - Ben.
> On 21 Sep 2014 11:03, "David Bannon" <dbannon at internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting proposal on the OSM Tagging list. Oz would have a
>> unpaved/paved ratio as higher that most countries, we should have an
>> opinion on this.
>>
>> So far, reaction has been mixed, some (including myself) welcoming it
>> and some seeing it as a duplicate of surface=
>>
>> Comments folks ?
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed
>> > from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it.
>> >
>> > Idea
>> >
>> > I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and
>> > probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved:
>> > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values
>> >
>> > The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki
>> > doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the
>> > article about Key:surface.
>> >
>> > Rationale
>> >
>> > Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a
>> > given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface
>> > key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is
>> > given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular
>> > surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple
>> > information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very
>> > useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses
>> > to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the
>> > surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software
>> > only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key
>> > can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects)
>> > navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that
>> > describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software –
>> > if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly
>> > stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in
>> > consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved.
>> >
>> > If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would
>> > have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved
>> > or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes,
>> > so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in
>> > general are paved.
>> >
>> > I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values
>> > for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some
>> > cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also,
>> > the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly
>> > surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the
>> > information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values
>> > are set for the surface key.
>> >
>> > I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would
>> > encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to
>> > implement support for it in their applications.
>> >
>> > What do you think about that?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Tomek
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing listTalk-au at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20140922/7990b606/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list