Am Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:10:33 -0200 schrieb Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com>:
> [rendering unpaved roads] > The Brazilian community has shown interest on this many times, > since lack of this feature causes unaware users to classify roads > incorrectly. There are a lot of countries which would have an advantage of such a style. > David Bannon proposes (below) that we use the tracktype > tag for that instead, but I've never seen it being used for anything > besides roads with highway=track (therefore, not a very common > practice it seems). Some examples have been mentioned in the other replies; I would like to add the * Baltic States (which have big woods with tiny settlements sprinkled in them being connected with unpaved roads) * Poland with some regions alike the above mentioned * Albania which is still struggling to pave its major roads, not to mention the minor ones. An example is the SH4¹ which was unpaved in big parts back in 2011 but well travelled. It is a primary highway with tendency to motorway * Australia is already mentioned in the mail you forward and I assume that in * Africa a lot of roads are similar > Do you think we should encourage its use in > conjunction with unclassified, tertiary, secondary and primary > highways? yes > It seems to me that surface=compacted is quite similar in meaning to > tracktype=grade1 (whereas surface=sand, surface=dirt, and others, > could be equated with other grades but rarely with grade1, > particularly because the "compacted" value exists) and so both tags > could be used for the same rendering purpose. Do you agree? I wouldn't connect surface=compacted and tracktype=grade1 per default since compacted roads and and roads with really paved surface (asphalt or cobblestones) are not unlikely to show a very different driving experience after some good rain. Of course this also depends on your definition of "compacted". :) For rendering a map displaying highway quality beside their classification I'd consider useful not only the tags * surface and * tracktype but also * 4wd_only (maybe mentioned at the Australian Tagging Guidelines) * ford= and some thoughts on roads in dry riverbeds. So far I mapped them with ford=yes. Iirc there have been discussions about this topic but at the moment I don't have time to research them. Once I also used ride_height=[value] because one road I walked would have required a car with about 40 cm ground clearance to pass it. looking forward to that enhanced rendering style, Thomas ¹ http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_22/slide_34.html ( contains exif tags with valid geotagging) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
