[OSM-talk] The Return of the Highway tags and other junk

[Mike Collinson]

Ben,

Using what I understand of current conventions, 
I'd re-write the problem you pose as below.  I 
think that reduces the issues to:

(1) Still has two values for railway=.  I've come 
across other situations like this, for example a 
pub with a restaurant (amenity=).  abandoned=yes 
is an possibility, but as you say, what does it refer to?

(2) I do map in outback Australia and the 
Philippines,  and endorse the idea to doing a 
"first pass" road definition with a highway= tag 
using the definitions broadly as now, a tag 
showing the width of the road in car widths and 
surface=paved/unpaved.  The waytype= proposed tag 
broadly meets the road-width criteria but could 
perhaps be further simplified.  I'd only use 
highway=track for things like agricultural 
access, fire-trails, 4-wheel drive roads.  A 
track-like road that has major transport significance I'd do something like:

highway=primary / secondary / unclassified
highway_width=1
surface=unpaved
description=Impassable during rainy season, often closed due to landslides

(3) The proposed tracktype= tag, I think, is 
somewhat Euro-centric but if the use of 
highway=track is limited in other places as 
above, I've no objection.  It is, for example, a 
very long time since I've seen a hedge but I 
think that could be generalised to "perimeter 
wall, fence or hedge".  It is a measure of how 
distinct the track is and how badly it will 
degrade in inclement weather, yes?: a) how 
heavily used b) the quality of the surface 
material c) whether it has perimeter border.  I 
wouldn't vote against but neither would I vote for.

Mike
Manila (moved from Oz)

highway/railway=viaduct
highway=gate,
highway=cattle_grid
highway=footway
highway=track
railway=abandoned
railway=narrow_gauge,
foot=permissive

to

NODE:
highway=gate,
highway=cattle_grid
SEGMENT:
bridge=yes  (or viaduct=yes)
WAY:
highway=footway
footway=track  (using the same system used for cycleway)
railway=abandoned
railway=narrow_gauge
foot=permissive
surface=unpaved (I wouldn't mind seeing this 
broadened to =mud =gravel etc instead of just =unpaved)
tracktype=grade4

At 11:23 AM 18/12/2006, Ben Robbins wrote:
>Well I'm forced to revive this topic, as It 
>seems to have stopped.  Nothing on the original 
>post has really been answered, but a handful of 
>elements discussed.   Bar the correction that in 
>very few circumstances tertiary may still have 
>its use within the UK, none of the original post 
>needs to be changed.  I still think the 
>same.  Pushing a topic into the past doesn’t 
>mean anything has been resolved.  Now there’s a 
>few outcomes that I would expect to be clear as 
>a result of discussion, of which none seem to 
>have been argued yet. (although opions may be clear)
>1) My ideas are faulty, and the current is logical,
>2) there both faulty,
>3) mines logical; the current is faulty
>4) there both logical, so stay with the current.
>5) knowone gives a dam, until they bump into the 
>same problem, therefore its just my problem.
>
>Well, here’s an example of why the current needs 
>fixing.  I know of an example where an old train 
>line crosses a viaduct, the railway has been 
>dismantled, and a tracktype=grade4 goes across 
>it.  There is then a few gates, and one cattle 
>grid(ish).  The whole section is a permissive 
>walkway. Now for this argument I shall also say 
>its narrow gage, although in reality it isn’t, 
>but it’s possible. Now the current way 
>(referencing the features page) would be:
>
>highway/railway=viaduct
>highway=gate,
>highway=cattle_grid
>highway=footway
>highway=track
>railway=abandoned
>railway=narrow_gauge,
>foot=permissive
>
>Now there are some obvious impossibilities 
>there, but please say if you disagree.
>
>Now I'm proposing (in reference to tracktypes, 
>the border key and features key) that it could 
>be done something like this.., and if not, I’m 
>proposing a discussion, to 1) say why its poor, and 2) suggest better..
>
>highway=footway
>foot=permisive
>tracktype=grade4
>railway=narrow_gaugue
>abandoned=yes (<I’m unshore of this as its not specific to what it references)
>border*=cattlegride
>border*=gate
>feature=viaduct
>
>(*=the two tags would be on separate adjacent ways)
>
>Now, 1 of them is possible, and 1 of them is 
>not. (I’ve tried them both) If the possible one 
>is poor then it should be discussed.  But saying 
>that the original is fine really doesn’t 
>work.  (note:  features is proposal for things 
>that fall along the way, border is for things 
>that fall adjacent to the way, and commonly make borders, such as a hedge).
>
>Now specifically talking about tracktypes.
>
>It doesn't matter how little people care about 
>the tag, the following are facts. (if not, explain why.)
>
>1)  The current 'track' tag is under highway
>
>2)  It therefore is either stating a legal 
>access right to the track, or it doesn’t!
>
>If it doesn’t, then there needs to be an 
>additional tag on top.  This means it can’t be 
>used with a highway tag, because the additional tag requires the highway value.
>
>If it does, then please explain to me what the 
>legal access rights stated by the track tag are.
>
>3) The track tag does not in any way indicate 
>the difference between the 5 described track 
>types.  (who cares some people may say
)
>
>4) There is at least 1 OSM member who wishes to 
>tag the different track properties of what he 
>rides/walks/drive on, as well as stating the 
>rights of way.   There is nothing in the track 
>type proposal that will prevent others using 
>other tags.  It is just a new tag.  Therefore: 
>5) If you don’t need/use it, It won’t effect you
>
>6) Mud in England is still Mud in New 
>Zealand.  Gravel in England is still gravel in 
>Japan.  This is therefore not Ukistic.
>
>7) A road that is wide enough for 2 cars to pass 
>without altering there speed in England, is the 
>same as it is in India.  (although car widths 
>may vary slightly).  Roads which cannot be past 
>on in England is the same in Kazakhstan.
>
>8)  A wide unclassified road, will on average 
>allow faster progress than a thin unclassified 
>road.  The route planner should therefore be 
>able to tell them apart.  I think (opion) that 
>the majority of people would agree that getting 
>out a car and measuring a road and tagging the 
>width is not a realistic idea, but noting 
>weather cars can pass each other is plausible.
>I'm requesting suggestions on how this should be 
>tackled.  If not I shall create my own, and then 
>go threw this process again with that.
>
>Can people please reply with either valid and 
>necessary critisms with better suggestions, or 
>of course agreements are a posibility
(as 
>if!).  I may just be being that annoying itch 
>that won’t go away, but this is all written with the aim of progression.
>
>Thanks
>
>Ben
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>It's Hotmail's 10th Birthday! Come and play Pass the Parcel
>http://www.msnpasstheparcel.com
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk