[OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki "map features"

Matt White mattwhite at iinet.net.au
Mon Dec 1 11:15:06 GMT 2008

Douglas Furlong wrote:
>     This makes is pretty straightforward to tag for all vehicle types
>     easily
>     - a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be
>     smoothness=bumpy (given that car is the primary vehicle for the
>     tertiary
>     highway type)
>     smoothness:mtb=bumpy
>     smoothness:racing_bicycle=rough (or unsuitable)
>     smoothness:tank=normal (or even "glass like" :-)
>     smoothness:rollerblade=unsuitable
> I really honestly can't see how the above differs from, for example.
> bicycle:mtb=bumpy
> bicylce:racing_bicyle=rough
> tank=normal
> skate:inline=unsuitable,
> Other than, we drop smoothness and replace it with the mode of 
> transport in question.
> I would strongly suggest Richards suggestion is ultimately clearer, 
> than the arbitrary smoothness tag.
I wasn't suggesting it was any better, although I kind of like the core 
key name first (smoothness:vehicletype=*) as it doesn't waste the 
primary tag (and something like skate:inline=unsuitable doesn't actually 
indicate what the why it is unsuitable (too steep, bad surface, high 
traffic volume, idiot weekend cyclistd abound etc.)
>     I don't personally like the term "smoothness" either, but I've yet to
>     find a decent alternative ("surface" would be nice, but 'tis taken).
>     The 4WD proposal (plug:
>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only) is a
>     little bit separate. It could be taken into account using some sort of
>     smoothness, track type, surface, take your pick, but I am specifically
>     looking at tracks that are actually signed as 4WD only, to be rendered
>     with a nice bit of text at the end of the road name to make it obvious
>     what is 4WD only (most decent AU maps of hte country side have
>     explicit
>     4WD tags of those roads that require it). Good for routing and the
>     like
>     (where the relative smoothness can be a bit subjective)
>  Where you have the sign post for 4WD only, is that an access 
> restriction or a suggestion?
> I.E. If you go on that road with a motorbike, or a 2wd vehicle, could 
> you face prosecution? Or would you just be considered a bit foolish?
> If it is the latter as opposed to the former, then I'd rather see some 
> thing along the lines of vehicle:4WD, as opposed to an access tag, 
> which to date I believe is being used to indicate permissibility, as 
> opposed to suitability, which are not the same thing at all.
It is the latter (it is a recommendation) rather than a legal 
restriction. The point of such an explict tag is so that when I'm out 
driving, the map actually shows the 4WD state as text (given that I dont 
think the Garmin I have really has any other way of visually 
distinguishing the road state/vehicle requirement)


More information about the talk mailing list