2014-03-23 20:25 GMT+01:00 vali :
> Of course no ordinary car is going to use those tracks. Keep in main the
> track definition:
>
> "Roads for agricultural use, forest tracks etc."
>
> Cars are not agricultural vehicles and they should not be used as a
> reference when we are talking about tracks
On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 20:55 +0100, vali wrote:
> I agree we should find a tag to note "practicability".
In an ideal world Vali, I'd agree. But we do need to think about all the
roads already in the database. I'd prefer to extend and encourage
greater use of an existing, well used tag if possible.
If it's someone's property, it should have an access=private tag. Some
owners may allow passage (access=permissive), in which case tracks
would be routable and likely interesting shortcuts. The routing app
needs to decide whether the shortcut is worth the trouble.
Besides, tracktype can be used on
I agree we should find a tag to note "practicability". Tracktype would be
great, but actual grades are only applicable when there terrain is mostly
earth and no rocks. That's the reason I put those pics. Hard surface does
not mean anything about "how good" a track is to use vehicles in, and
surface
None of those tracks should be used for tracking, they are not meant for
cars. Most of the time they will end in someone's land/property anyways.
2014-03-21 1:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :
> But at least now I know I need to review my values more
> pessimistically. (Which is what I wanted afte
Of course no ordinary car is going to use those tracks. Keep in main the
track definition:
"Roads for agricultural use, forest tracks etc."
Cars are not agricultural vehicles and they should not be used as a
reference when we are talking about tracks. By agricultural vehicles, the
main and almost
It can be a track indeed, my choice would depend on actual width. It's
impossible to be sure if a standard car fits it from a fixed photo,
perspective can be tricky at such assessments.
The wiki articles on mtb:scale and sac_scale state very clearly that
these tags can be applied to both tracks an
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> If so many people agree that the current values are inappropriate
"smoothness" was very controversial from its beginning. It is not used
by any data consumer and probably will never be in the future (for the
reasons already reported here
But at least now I know I need to review my values more
pessimistically. (Which is what I wanted after all.)
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
> grade5? In the wiki: "Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard
> materials, uncompacted,
http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
grade5? In the wiki: "Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard
materials, uncompacted, subtle on the landscape, with surface of
soil/sand/grass."
So if you guys agree that this is grade5 (or worse), what's written in
the wiki is far from accurate.
On Thu, Mar
I believe I understand exactly what you mean, David, and I fully
agree. We could start by advising people to use the values for
smoothness in their descriptions. If so many people agree that the
current values are inappropriate, let's write a proposal for the new
values, get it approved (should be
I generally agree with Martin's assessment. None of these tracks is all
that suitable for getting from one place to another in any reasonable
amount of time, if ever. The photos point out quite well the limitations of
the tracktype definitions.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali :
> I have some pics to show what I am talking about:
>
> http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
> http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg
>
> These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1.
>
to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like
tracktype grade 4
Vali, those are some of the nastiest tracks I've ever seen. No ordinary car
is going to be traversing those and even most 4WD will be forced to drive
very slowly in order to avoid the bigger, protruding rocks. As for
tracktype, there is no "grade" type to describe them unless we extend the
grade sc
Thanks David
I don't like smoothness values either.
Problem is this key does't take in account other things that can prevent
certain type of vehicles from using that type of track. I put an example in
the last pic with a track with good surface but everything else is not so
good.
At first I saw
Vali, great contribution to the discussion.
The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused
a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' !
tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info
for bike or walkers.
I sort of think 'smoothnes
Hi
I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks "the right way" but after
reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed are almost
like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here are old (some of
them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance is almost none.
I h
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 11:50 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Perhaps what people worry about here is "how soft" the surface is.
Trouble is Fernando, that in many cases the problem is not in fact
'softness', it could be rocks, ruts, slippery, steepness, angle
(left/right) and lots more. The bigges
David Bannon wrote:
>"Should I use this road or not ?"
> tracktype= does claim to use that approach
It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
documenting. The part about "how well maintained"
on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
the values. There is a connection, but trackty
What I mean is that the same idea does not apply so often and so
extremely and in such a regular fashion and for long periods to other
kinds of roads. That's why I said "in fact, of snow". I would expect
to see something very similar in southern Argentina and Chile, in
Antarctica, in Greenland, and
The Russian "winter roads" situation is not unique. From what I have read, the
same situation applies in some parts of Canada and Alaska.
On March 20, 2014 10:58:01 AM CDT, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> In Brazil, these conditions are somewhat often permanent (or at least
> expected to be permane
In Brazil, these conditions are somewhat often permanent (or at least
expected to be permanent) when they happen. Sometimes it's due to poor
administration, which changes only every 4 years. Sometimes it's due
to poor construction, which costs a lot to fix. Sometimes it's due to
weather, which in m
2014-03-20 15:50 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :
> Perhaps what people worry about here is "how soft" the surface is.
> There may be various degrees of "softness" to be measured.
>
actually to me the problem seems that these properties are somehow dynamic.
If the surface is unpaved it will depend a
In fact, the picture in this article does correspond to the
description of grade4: "Almost always an unpaved track prominently
with soil/sand/grass, but with some hard materials, or compressed
materials mixed in."
Perhaps what people worry about here is "how soft" the surface is.
There may be vari
2014-03-20 11:40 GMT+01:00 David Bannon :
> > as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst),
>
> No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate
> that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many
> roads far, far worse that the grade
2014-03-20 12:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> That means that the description of grade5 in the wiki should be fixed as
> similar or worse than the road to Jakutsk:
>http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/vinlin27c.htm
>
looking at those pictures it seems as if that's not even a track but a
road. If it were
On 20/03/2014 11:40, David Bannon wrote:
We both agree it would be a bad thing to redefine existing widely used
tags. WRT your answer to Fernando, again, Martin, I suggest, with the
greatest of respect, that you may not have experienced just how bad
some roads can be. A few months ago, I spent
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:40:15PM +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> A few months ago, I spent two long days traversing a 250Km section of
> the "Kennedy Development Rd" in Queensland. No part of it even
> approached the grade5 described in tracktype= . There are many other
> roads, world wide, often q
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 09:02 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst),
No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate
that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many
roads far, far worse tha
Am 19/mar/2014 um 23:35 schrieb David Bannon :
>> Please note that the track type scale goes from 1 to 5, there is no such
>> thing as a grade6
> Indeed. What I said was I believe there should be 6,7 and 8. There is already
> a small number of =grade6 in the database
as the current system fr
> Am 20/mar/2014 um 06:53 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
>
> Wondering if any country would be doing worse than Brazil in terms of
> road infrastructure, I found this:
> http://global.umich.edu/2014/02/worlds-most-dangerous-roads-are-in-africa-middle-east-latin-america/
OT here, but I'd expect the
Mapping has a conflict: we want to be precise enough to make a useful
map (more tags), but we also want to map quickly (less tags).
Describing the surface probably is one of those problems that lies
near the middle of these opposing goals, and finding the perfect
balance is the challenge. For now,
I just read (almost) the entire thread about smoothness Fernando mentioned
here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Accepted_features/Smoothness#Renaming_current_valuesand
I must say, it looks like an uphill battle to make substantial changes
in any definition of a road's usability for routing
I think that adding the idea of "risk of degradation" is very
enriching to the article.
Just to test the concept: if tracktype means durability/endurance more
than firmness, what tracktype would you (and others) expect to see
alongside with surface=stone?
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Dave Swa
I think you mean that we should redefine the meaning of the values of
the tracktype tag. I'm wondering if that's good because the text has
been essentially stable since december 2011, when the article got its
head paragraphs. Descriptions of tag values have been essentially the
same since 2008, whe
Thanks Martin.
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 13:15 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> grade1 is mostly asphalted, (and comprises also heavily
> compacted hardcore with similar characteristics).
You are of course quite right. I was paraphrasing the end user. Sorry.
> Please note that the track type scal
> Am 18/mar/2014 um 23:36 schrieb David Bannon :
>
> Please lets think of tracktype= as -
>
> 1. OK, its unsealed but smooth, level, well looked after.
grade1 is mostly asphalted, (and comprises also heavily
compacted hardcore with similar characteristics).
Please note that the track type sc
Yes Dave (Swarthout), I share your views here. I'd rather we looked at a
rating that reflected how well maintained and usable the road is likely
to be. That is what most road users want to know. "Should I use this
road or not ?"
tracktype= does claim to use that approach and that why its so popu
Yes, I agree firmness works better than stiffness for describing a surface.
I still would prefer a term that better characterizes what Fernando said
above: "To me, the idea [of] a firm/soft mixture seems closely related to
"how well maintained" the track/road is, as mixtures that are not so
durable
"Firmness" sounds good to me: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firmness
I know that "soundness" means the same but has some additional
meanings (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soundness),
"firmness" is more specific.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:09 PM, johnw wrote:
>
>
>
> On Ma
On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> Replacing 'stiffness'
> with something else is absolutely fine with me.
What about firmness? soundness?
Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.
Two subjective opinions that agree create "consensus", this is I
believe what we seek in OSM when defining tags. Replacing 'stiffness'
with something else is absolutely fine with me. I think the word we
replace it with will essentially be the definition of tracktype. I'm
sure I'm not the best perso
But if the surface is rocky or stone, can it really be described as
"surface of gravel mixed with a varying amount of sand, silt, and
clay" (grade2) or "even mixture of hard and soft materials" (grade3)
and so on?
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>> Am 16/mar/2014 um 2
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Willis wrote:
> Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in
> "dirt road?"
>
> Earthen road?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
Either "compacted earth road" (more specific) or "unsurfaced road"
(which I prefer); or "green lane"
> Am 16/mar/2014 um 22:07 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
>
> One question: do you think that an almost flat natural rock path
> should be tracktype=grade1 (because it's closer to "compacted") or
> tracktype=grade5 (because it's not "constructed")?
I think this depends how even/smooth it is, grade1 is
I knew I would be opening Pandora's box when I made those statements. As
for tracks, I should have prefaced my remarks with *In My Opinion* — I am
well aware that it's too late to change the current situation.
I would still argue that smoothness is a valuable parameter. Ignoring speed
limits and s
> Am 17/mar/2014 um 04:47 schrieb Dave Swarthout :
>
> A track is a track (a rough road or trail, unpaved, mostly un-maintained)
> suitable for light use only, and is never a highway.
actually in osm a track is a way for agricultural and forestry purposes (if
fishing had more importance in t
Good on you Dave, I do like a good rant !
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 10:47 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> IMO tracktype should describe the physical
> characteristics of a track, not a highway, and it should have nothing
> to do with "how well maintained" it is.
Great in an ideal world Dave. Ho
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:11 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Do you all agree with these wiki edits?
>
1. Yes, almost. Not too happy with the term 'stiffness'. Maybe just remove the
term 'stiffness' ?
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes, I guess so ...
However, while a good job Fernando, I still think w
Fernando,
Thanks for your efforts on this troublesome topic. I've been following the
conversation but have avoided adding any comments up to now because of the
complexity of any solutions I could offer.
I have problems with the whole relationship between tracktype, surface,
and smoothness and h
Do you all agree with these wiki edits?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Atracktype&diff=1002090&oldid=992679
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Atracktype&diff=1002096&oldid=971383
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Asm
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> 2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :
>
>> "tracktype" is the "degree of compaction" of the material
>> (regardless of material)
>
>
>
> I have always more thought of it "how much it was constructed", while
> tracktype=1 is a
2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :
> "tracktype" is the "degree of compaction" of the material
> (regardless of material)
>
I have always more thought of it "how much it was constructed", while
tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not
constructed at all)
It's not that straightforward to me since tracktype is described in
terms of surface materials, which can have widely varying levels of
compaction.
But great, I'll update the articles trying to make this distinction
clearer, then post back here my changes.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, johnw
>
>
> In summary:
> - "tracktype tag"="surface:compaction"
> - "smoothness tag"="surface:regularity"
> - "surface tag"="surface:material_structure"
That is how I understand it. the Smoothness is the most subjective one, but the
others should be pretty straightforward.
Javbw
___
Please correct me if I'm wrong, after reading what you said, I think
that the point that I was missing was this:
- "tracktype" is the "degree of compaction" of the material
(regardless of material)
- "smoothness" is the "degree of irregularity" of the surface (for
wheeled vehicles, also regardless
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place
> where I live in Brazil.
That's really pretty!
> Anyway, back to your place. I believe you'd call this a dirt road
> leading into a private property:
> https://www.goo
How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place
where I live in Brazil. (If you're curious:
https://www.google.com/maps?q=Porto+Alegre&ll=-30.228926,-51.066213&spn=0.013942,0.047979&t=m&hnear=Porto+Alegre,+Rio+Grande+do+Sul,+Brasil&z=15&layer=c&cbll=-30.228942,-51.066222&panoid=
On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
> more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance)
Not when the road is dirt as opposed to gravel.
I live on a gravel road in Japan. My aunt lived on a
On 3/14/14 4:05 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
> more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance), it
> would be even better. (That's my point: "dirt" is good, something more
> is specific such as "compacted", "ear
Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance), it
would be even better. (That's my point: "dirt" is good, something more
is specific such as "compacted", "earth", "sand" or "clay" is even
better). The editors h
On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value)
> and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
> acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
> low quality (too imprecise) for applicatio
Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value)
and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
rendering of detailed su
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 22:44 +0900, John Willis wrote:
> Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in
> "dirt road?"
>
> Earthen road?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
There is no usage of dirt road in the UK most, if not all, public roads
are hard surfaced (altho
Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in "dirt
road?"
Earthen road?
Inquiring minds want to know.
J
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24A
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
>> Here's my take from an Englishman!
>>
>> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all
>
> From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English
> is unders
On 3/14/14 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon :
>>
>> We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road
>
>
> agreed, but would you say it has a "dirt surface"?
>
i certainly wouldn't. i use unpaved as the more generic
term, and dirt or gravel when i
> Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon :
>
> We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road
agreed, but would you say it has a "dirt surface"?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or
Keeping up with you:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurface&diff=1000695&oldid=1000659
It seems science defines "soil" more broadly, we sure can expect
people to choose based on common (not scientific) usage. From
Wikipedia: "[Soil] is a natural body that
+1 for dirt. There is a distinct difference between a dirt and gravel roads, as
well as sand.
In the US, dirt roads - especially fire and forestry roads - are maintained for
private and emergency access. Most of these roads are maintained by grading,
but are not surfaced with gravel in any way
I agree with David Bannon when he says " 'earth' and 'ground' are really
not very informative terms" when it comes to road surfaces but not what he
says about dirt, and with most of what Martin said in his recent post, but
especially that a "dirt road does not contain gravel" even though we
colloqu
Well, I've updated the descriptions in the wiki for ground, dirt and
earth:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurface&diff=1000653&oldid=978363
Does it look ok?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> In Australia, we refer to a "dirt roa
In Australia, we refer to a "dirt road" meaning just about any unsealed
road. Very rarely use "earth" or "ground". Ground sounds to me more like
the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level !
We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes
through its n
> Am 13/mar/2014 um 20:57 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
>
> So:
> - "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the same
> thing)
> - "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
> vegetation (say, grass)
IMHO if it's grass then the mapper will most likely
> Am 13/mar/2014 um 15:56 schrieb fly :
>
> Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
> does not have to be.
+1, both are probably an indication that the way is travelled frequently
enough/compacted to some level that prevents vegetation (ok, this surely
depends o
So:
- "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the same thing)
- "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
vegetation (say, grass)
- "dirt" could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarif
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien <
fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems that:
> - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
> paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
> surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegeta
It seems that:
- if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
right?
- the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
broad descript
While I'd probably colloquially call it a "dirt road", your description of the
construction sounds suspiciously like the construction developed by John
MacAdam and may well be considered to be surfaced road by a highway engineer.
In the early days of motoring that type of road was considered to
In Portuguese, we have the same false friend as French, and I'd guess
Spanish and Italian have it too. At least for Portuguese, literal
translations of these terms (ground, dirt, earth and soil) correspond
exactly to your description, Steve. If we translate literally,
however, we're gonna see peopl
14 10:03 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Am 13.03.2014 15:56, schrieb fly:
> On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?
> Well, I would con
On 3/13/14 12:02 PM, Georg Feddern wrote:
>
> So I would get rid of dirt, but keep 'earth' beside 'ground' as a
> useful value (smooth walking on hiking trails) .
where as for my mapping in the US, dirt is the only
one that i use, and common usage is to refer to these
roads as dirt roads by pretty
Am 13.03.2014 15:56, schrieb fly:
On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:
But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?
Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
does not have to be.
All together, I think we could get rid of at least on
On 13/03/2014 15:09, ael wrote:
From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English
is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not
clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth. But it
is almost never used to mean soil or earth under y
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
> Here's my take from an Englishman!
>
> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all
>From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English
is understood to mean the substance which causes something to
On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?
Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
does not have to be.
All together, I think we could get rid of at least one out of the three
tags after updat
But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, fly wrote:
> On 13.03.2014 10:34, jonathan wrote:
>> Here's my take from an Englishman!
>>
>> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
>> (adopted) roads in the UK
On 13.03.2014 10:34, jonathan wrote:
> Here's my take from an Englishman!
>
> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
> (adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form. Most
> dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.
>
> Now, back t
Here's my take from an Englishman!
While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
(adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form. Most
dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.
Now, back to the original question. I totally agree with
I'll weigh in with the common American conception of "dirt road". It is a
general term meaning unpaved. As Jaakko correctly pints out, some "dirt
roads" are really quite well built. For an example close to my Alaska home,
the long lonely road leading to the Prudhoe Bay oilfields, see these images
o
My (non-native) English understanding / ear says that dirt is a general
name for all unpaved roads. This may include any loose material, really
ranging from soil that just happened to be there to natural or processed
sand to industrially produced gravel, possibly with an added layer of
"loose" mate
Hello,
There are 3 values for surface (ground, dirt and earth) that are
described as "probably equivalent" in the wiki. The pictures tell a
slightly different story: ground seems to allow the presence of
"grass" along with "usage marks" (car or pedestrian tracks), as does
earth, whereas dirt seems
92 matches
Mail list logo
