[Talk-us] Unpaved streets

[Chris Hunter]

Paul,

Thanks for the reminder about the US Tagging page, I forgot to add it to my
watchlist in the wiki and it's definitely grown since my last read-through.

Regarding the whole road vs. track vs. path debate, I think the only way of
resolving the whole track/tracktype (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype) issue is to allow each
country's mappers to decide how to deal with that particular tag.

Since we're revisiting the issue at the moment, I'd like to propose
re-opening the track and tracktype pages for RFC and create a US usage
standard for both keys.  Does anyone else feel like seconding this?

Thanks,
Chris

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Paul Fox <pgf at foxharp.boston.ma.us> wrote:

> dale wrote:
>  > I have been reading thru these posts and havn't seen a consensus/summary
>  > yet.  In my view it should be reasonably straight forward based on the
> tags
>  > we have.  The point is to describe what is actually there.
>  >
>  > highway= is for the type of road regardless of condition.  A paved
> surface
>  > is assumed unless otherwise stated.
>  >   If it does not have a name (and thus no addresses), it should be a
> track.
>  > This would typically be a 1 lane (total) or possible wide enough for 2.
>  > This probably assumes an unpaved surface by default.
>  >
>  > See also Tracktype= for further track classification.
>  > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
>  >
>  > Surface= is for describing the condition of the road when it does not
> match
>  > the assumed default.  Unpaved works but isn't that descriptive.  Gravel,
>  > dirt ect. would be a better choice.
>  >
>  > Access= if it needs to be tagged private or other than full public
> access.
>  >
>
> thank you for this summary.
>
> i think you'd be doing future versions of this thread a service
> by somehow integrating this into the text at:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Other_Roads
> which is similar, but slightly different, and certainly not as complete.
>
> (i'd do it, but i've already proved myself as unqualified to deal with
> the true subtleties of tagging...)
>
> paul
>
>  > If there are further situations that need to be tagged, we probably want
> to
>  > either apply more tags to clarify the conditions, or better yet create a
> new
>  > subset of tags for specific use.  I'm thinking of someone wanting to
> start
>  > tagging offroad trails for bikes, or 4wheel drive ect.  I would think
>  > because of the narrowed focus of something like that it should be well
>  > separate from what most cars can drive.  Sort of an oxymoron off-road
>  > roads.... :)
>  >
>  > And as usual if other applications do not use the tags right, we need to
>  > e-mail the authors and ask for a change to fit the tags.  I'm sure they
>  > prefer that to digging in the wiki to see if someone started using
> something
>  > new/different.
>  >
>  > --
>  > Dale Puch
>  > part 2     text/plain                 143
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Talk-us mailing list
>  > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> =---------------------
>  paul fox, pgf at foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.3
> degrees)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20090909/359760dd/attachment.html>