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

[John Drinkwater]

On 1/10/07, Tim Payne <tp9674 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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

What would you use for a single-track lane with passing places,
lanes=1, and separate ways for the passing-places, or.. ?


>  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

Condititon is one of those things that can change widely over a year
depending on weather, acts of God etc. I'd think it much better to not
include this.


>  /** 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
>


-- 
John '[Beta]' Drinkwater
http://johndrinkwater.name/