[OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki "map features"
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
> - a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be
> smoothness=bumpy (given that car is the primary vehicle for the
> highway type)
> smoothness:racing_bicycle=rough (or unsuitable)
> smoothness:tank=normal (or even "glass like" :-)
> I really honestly can't see how the above differs from, for example.
> 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
> 4WD tags of those roads that require it). Good for routing and the
> (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