[OSM-talk] Road Widths, Stubs and Priority/Giveway.

[Tim Payne]

Interlug wrote:    
On 1/10/07, Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com> wrote:


   
1)

Road widths:  This has been discussed beforeish, Im not really fussed how
its tagged, but any suggestion would be appreiciated, otherwise I shall tag
them as highwaytype=type1/2/3/4.*.   This is a way of splitting up the
varing width variations of the small roads that are otherwise tagged the
same (unclassified).

*Additional to highway=unclassified, (and streetlight=yes, catseyes=yes if
nessesery)

1=Road with Room for Normal viecles going in each direction to drive past
each other normally
2=Roads where cars can pass but will usually slow down, and/or move to one
side of the road.  Usually they lack road markings in the UK
3=Roads where 1 of the cars would need to drive up onto to grass/sand/mud on
the side of the road
4=Roads where the road edge stops easy passing and 1 of the 2 cars would
have to reverse to a passing spot.  Walls/enbanked edges/ditches/sinking
sand etcetc along the edge.

   

Is this new?
Is this the same thing that you were talking about earlier?  I thought
you were talking about additional classifications for tracks only, now
I see unclassified mentioned above.  Did I miss that the first time
around?

If you're talking about tracks
highway="motorway" variations can be classified with the existing
lanes="#" tag.  Can lanes= and surface= give you what you seek?  Does
highway="track", lanes="0.5", surface="grass and gravel" tell you that
passing requires caution?

Why 1/2/3/4 ?
If these tracks can't be distinguished to your satisfaction with
highway="track", lanes="0.5", surface="grass and gravel" or similar
why would you choose to classify them with a code number (1/2/3/4)
rather than something more descriptive?  I don't know what you would
consider acceptable for a descriptive value but how about
"pass_with_caution" "use_passing_areas" or
"if_there_is_oncoming_traffic_you're_finished".

On a personal note, Ben.  I would support your proposal if it made
sense to me but I just don't understand it.  It is not a matter of
saying to myself "I don't think I'd use it, so I won't vote for it."
I don't understand what it is for.  When I try to imagine how I would
use your proposal above, I can not think of a group of public roads
that need to be distinguished in the way that I imagine you are
suggesting.

Is this proposal intended to distinguish between different tracks on
private property?  To show differing amounts of use on a farm or
something?  Help me understand.


  I tend to map quite a lot of country tracks and agree that some additional methods of tagging them would be useful. Mostly for me I think this comes down to what sort of vehicle is required for using them, along the lines of;
 
 1) suitable for any vehicle
 2) 4x4 required
 3) only suitable for agricultural / construction vehicles (+ bike and foot).
 
 The 'lanes' tag sounds quite a good way of differentiating between the width of tracks e.g.:
 lanes=2 passing easy
 lanes=1.5 passing tricky
 lanes=1 passing is a real pain
 
 but I'm not sure about 'surface'. Not only can the surface regularly change on a track (grass -> mud -> dirt -> gravel -> roughly surfaced), it also is not necessarily relevant. For example I don't care whether a track is gravel or dirt or grass etc. All I want to know is if I drive my car down it am I liable to have problems. I know there are some tags that say what vehicles are permitted on the road, but I would prefer to avoid these as they are not representative - e.g. cars are technically allowed, it's just that you probably won't  get very far in one. 
 
 One option could be something like 'condition' / 'suitability' etc. , e.g.
 
 /** suitable for most vehicles - passing is restricted **/ 
 highway=track
 lanes=1.5
 condition=good
 
 /** a nice wide track, but only suitable for 4x4, agricultural etc. **/
 highway=track
  lanes=2
  condition=medium
 
 Unfortunately this could all gets somewhat subjective - although I'm not sure if this is an argument for more or less specific guidelines. 
 
 It's also worth pointing out that most regional maps I've seen tend to have 2 levels of track, generally a solid gray line for tracks which are unpaved but suitable for most vehicles and dotted gray lines for tracks which require >= 4x4. while I don't advocate blindly following what commercial companies do, the fact that other organistions differentiate between the 2 shows that there is certainly an issue to be debated.
 
 Tim
 
 
 		
---------------------------------
 New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070110/540edf46/attachment.html>