I agree with you, but I think both tags would be useful in different contexts. For instance, to me, tracktype (current + your new recommendations) seems particularly oriented to car routing. For that purpose, I agree that it would be a great choice. Surface, on the other hand, seems more useful for various different kinds of routing (say, for wheelchair or for bicycles). Indeed, dirt and earth are both imprecise (as is "unpaved"), specially for routing (of any kind), but not so much for rendering if all we want is to mark unpaved/unsealed ways (because this is perhaps the most important difference to most users).
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:22 PM, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 22:00 -0200, Fernando Trebien wrote: >> .... A smarter router could even change this preference >> based on weather conditions (under rain, sett gets considerably >> slippery, and dirt would be far less preferable than compacted). >> > > I guess that is why I like the use of tracktype=, its a hierarchical > tag, its easy for a router to decide to show (eg) grade1 through to > grade3 roads and not offer grade4 and grade5. A user can switch their > router to what ever level of 'braveness' that they feel. > > I think the values possible under surface= are less clear, is =dirt > better than =earth ? Badly maintained =compacted can be far worse than > =dirt sometimes, pot holes (as we call there here) can be unexpected and > dangerous at speed. There are so many legal values .... > > David > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
