Re: [Tagging] Unsuitable?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:35 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Residential neighborhoods will often have a sign banning trucks (heavy goods : > Also, a road may be unsuitable for large vehicles because of limited As soon as the warning is "verifiable" with a traffic sign and is not expressing a personnal opinion (not suitable for my bike), this value is fine (it does not exist in my country anyway ;). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Unsuitable?
Would anyone have a problem with me reverting the Wiki to the previous access tag while we discuss the changes? Personally I feel this is a complex enough issue to go through it's own proposal process. Especially because we may end up agreeing on a different tag to reflect the non-legal but officially recommended status of these warnings. Dom On 10 January 2014 09:23, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:35 AM, John F. Eldredge > wrote: > > Residential neighborhoods will often have a sign banning trucks (heavy > goods > : > > Also, a road may be unsuitable for large vehicles because of limited > > As soon as the warning is "verifiable" with a traffic sign and is not > expressing a personnal opinion (not suitable for my bike), this value > is fine (it does not exist in my country anyway ;). > > Pieren > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful _SUMMARY_ for rendering of roads in poor conditions
OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on this topic to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki credentials is welcome to edit it to try and make the choices clearer. if you don't have OSM credentials, feel free to post corrections or additions to me and I will put them in on your behalf. If we edit for a bit and then vote to determine what is the popular solution to this problem. We can then, if appropriate, turn it into a formal proposal and really vote. Please forgive me for being so late in getting this wiki page up and ready, been some unrelated family issues... david On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 17:07 +1100, David Bannon wrote: > OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner. > > But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize > where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what > we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ? > > If people think its a good idea I could post a more evolved summary onto > my OSM wiki page where we could all have a hack at it, might be more > manageable than the mailing list ? If nothing else, we need to break > this very complicated problem into manageable hunks. > > Think of this somewhat like a flow chart, I just have not drawn it up... > > Do we all agree that its important that significant maps, such as the > one on the OSM website, shows some indication if the road may be in a > state where some drivers are uncomfortable (right through to > dangerous) ? > > If Yes, proceed, if No, please explain why not. You may like to address > this - > http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-07/25yo-man-dies-of-thirst-in-outback-queensland/4357380 > There are lots more. Tourists from outside Australia are at particular > risk. > > OK, assuming we agree we want 'something' ... > > We need some tag (or tags) associated with a way that tells a rendering > engine this way is one that might need caution. We can try and use > existing tags or invent a new one. > > The "new one" option (such as BGNO's trafficability) could be tuned, > based on experience, to do exactly what we want. On the other hand there > are currently no ways in the database using that new tag. There are 3 > million surface= and 2.5 million tracktype= tags in there. Mappers put > used those tags in there for a reason. > > If you want a new tag defined, please say so, maybe with a new subject ? > > Continuing on, assuming we support using existing tags, which ones ? At > lease three 'approved' candidates, four if you include 4wd_only. > > Surface= has about 3 million ways that are what we, in Oz, call > 'unsealed', dirt, sand, gravel, unpaved and so on. This is not a bad fit > but neither is it perfect. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface > "To provide additional information about the physical surface of > roads/footpaths" However, my experience is that a precise statement > about the surface does not necessarily relate to its > "trafficability" (thanks for the term BGNO!). I have driven sandy roads > that were so easy and somewhere else, spent a day with a shovel digging > through sand. Similarly, hard packed clay can sometimes be preferable to > a made gravel road that has developed severe corrugations. And a sealed, > tarmac road that is breaking up is a nightmare. > > Tracktype= has about 2.5 million grade2 and beyond ways. "Tracktype is a > measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is." > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype > Thats a lot closer to what someone (or a router) might be wanting to > know. It can and should be applied to all sorts of highway= ways, not > just =track and that seems to be a major problem. In some people's view > (Malenki..), it should be used only when highway=track. I and several > other people (and the wiki) disagree. The values of Tracktype are not > intuitive. The values are linearly expandable, to cover more extreme > road conditions, grade6 is already widely used but not approved. > > Smoothness= has about 25 thousand ways. Thats drawing the line at > very_bad. But there are another 40 thousand 'bads' so its hard to call. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness > I am personally convinced this tag would be used heaps more if the > values did not seem to make some moral judgment ! As I said before, I > could never label the pretty road I live on as "horrible". > There is some support for making a new set of values and that would be > cool (Fernando, Martin). But has the horse already bolted ? Surface= and > tracktype each have more than 100 times more use. Further, if we come > up with new values, why not a new name ? Truth is, 'smoothness' is only > a small aspect of trafficability (there, I used it again!). > > 4wd_only=yes. Used 3 thousand times, more in Australia than elsewhere. > In hindsight, maybe it could have done with at least three values, > 'recommended', 'yes', 'extreme'. It does cut in somewhat beyond the spo
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful _SUMMARY_ for rendering of roads in poor conditions
@David - where is the summary located exactly? I reckon I need a specific link to "your" Wiki" page. Thanks On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM, David Bannon wrote: > > OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on this topic > to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki credentials is > welcome to edit it to try and make the choices clearer. > > if you don't have OSM credentials, feel free to post corrections or > additions to me and I will put them in on your behalf. > > If we edit for a bit and then vote to determine what is the popular > solution to this problem. > > We can then, if appropriate, turn it into a formal proposal and really > vote. > > Please forgive me for being so late in getting this wiki page up and > ready, been some unrelated family issues... > > david > > > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 17:07 +1100, David Bannon wrote: > > OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner. > > > > But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize > > where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what > > we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ? > > > > If people think its a good idea I could post a more evolved summary onto > > my OSM wiki page where we could all have a hack at it, might be more > > manageable than the mailing list ? If nothing else, we need to break > > this very complicated problem into manageable hunks. > > > > Think of this somewhat like a flow chart, I just have not drawn it up... > > > > Do we all agree that its important that significant maps, such as the > > one on the OSM website, shows some indication if the road may be in a > > state where some drivers are uncomfortable (right through to > > dangerous) ? > > > > If Yes, proceed, if No, please explain why not. You may like to address > > this - > > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-07/25yo-man-dies-of-thirst-in-outback-queensland/4357380 > > There are lots more. Tourists from outside Australia are at particular > > risk. > > > > OK, assuming we agree we want 'something' ... > > > > We need some tag (or tags) associated with a way that tells a rendering > > engine this way is one that might need caution. We can try and use > > existing tags or invent a new one. > > > > The "new one" option (such as BGNO's trafficability) could be tuned, > > based on experience, to do exactly what we want. On the other hand there > > are currently no ways in the database using that new tag. There are 3 > > million surface= and 2.5 million tracktype= tags in there. Mappers put > > used those tags in there for a reason. > > > > If you want a new tag defined, please say so, maybe with a new subject ? > > > > Continuing on, assuming we support using existing tags, which ones ? At > > lease three 'approved' candidates, four if you include 4wd_only. > > > > Surface= has about 3 million ways that are what we, in Oz, call > > 'unsealed', dirt, sand, gravel, unpaved and so on. This is not a bad fit > > but neither is it perfect. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface > > "To provide additional information about the physical surface of > > roads/footpaths" However, my experience is that a precise statement > > about the surface does not necessarily relate to its > > "trafficability" (thanks for the term BGNO!). I have driven sandy roads > > that were so easy and somewhere else, spent a day with a shovel digging > > through sand. Similarly, hard packed clay can sometimes be preferable to > > a made gravel road that has developed severe corrugations. And a sealed, > > tarmac road that is breaking up is a nightmare. > > > > Tracktype= has about 2.5 million grade2 and beyond ways. "Tracktype is a > > measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is." > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype > > Thats a lot closer to what someone (or a router) might be wanting to > > know. It can and should be applied to all sorts of highway= ways, not > > just =track and that seems to be a major problem. In some people's view > > (Malenki..), it should be used only when highway=track. I and several > > other people (and the wiki) disagree. The values of Tracktype are not > > intuitive. The values are linearly expandable, to cover more extreme > > road conditions, grade6 is already widely used but not approved. > > > > Smoothness= has about 25 thousand ways. Thats drawing the line at > > very_bad. But there are another 40 thousand 'bads' so its hard to call. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness > > I am personally convinced this tag would be used heaps more if the > > values did not seem to make some moral judgment ! As I said before, I > > could never label the pretty road I live on as "horrible". > > There is some support for making a new set of values and that would be > > cool (Fernando, Martin). But has the horse already bolted ? Surface= and > > tracktype each have more than 100 times more use. Further, if we come > > up with new values,
