On 3 January 2014 04:35, Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, that road is certainly not a good example of what we have in Alaska. > Our unpaved roads are all-weather roads and can tolerate a lot of rain. > The great majority would not degrade to that condition. They are a mixture > of sand, clay and gravel optimized for the purpose and laid down on top of > a geotextile base. Fairly stable even for heavy traffic. The "haul road" to > the oil fields at Prudhoe Bay are an example of such a road. Do a search in > Google Images for "alaska haul road" to see them. > Nevertheless, I guess that OSM users would be glad to know which roads in Alaska are paved or not. Another possible sub-tag that springs into my mind for this would be surface:stable=yes. > > That said, I agree that too much fussiness in assigning surface conditions > is overall probably less helpful than just knowing if a road is paved or > unpaved. I have driven on classified highways here in Thailand that are > tracks in all but name. They're paved but so broken up and pot holed that > I've used a tag we haven't discussed in this thread yet, surface_condition, > to describe them, e.g., surface_condition=Rough less than 40 kph, and > similar. Will these ever get rendered in a meaningful way? Maybe someday, > but I'm not holding my breath. > I know exactly what you mean. These days I drove on a paved road which was so badly damaged that I was glad when the asphalt ended, but only because it was not raining. Under heavy rain your still glad at any amount of asphalt left on the road. I've used smoothness=bad to tag this road and was happy to learn that this is rendered with the HOT style http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-19.97112/-46.00794&layers=H
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
