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

[David Groom]

blank
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Robbins" <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
To: <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:23 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] The Return of the Highway tags and other junk


> 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.

I mainly disagree :)

The one point I agree on is the highway / railway = viaduct.  Since bridges 
/ tunnels / cuttings and embankments are covered by the tagging structure 
bridge = yes , tunnel = yes , cutting = yes , embankment = yes, it would 
seem logical to have a tag viaduct = yes.

gates & cattle grids are applied no nodes and not ways, so don't seem to 
come into the matter.

As I understand it railway = narrow_gauge would be used on an functioning 
railway, so you only need the railway=abandoned

David



>
> 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
>