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 tracktype something like a "general state of the track" but I see it is not. I am glad I didn't tag any of those tracks with it. 2014-03-20 23:36 GMT+01:00 David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>: > > 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 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are > excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word > "smoothness" and the assigned values. Sigh.... > > Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its > called "tagging for renderers", punishable by death but happens all the > time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=. Some evil people > consider this fact when choosing which tag to use. > > Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ? If > promoted it could be whats needed ? > > David > > > On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote: > > 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 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. The first pic is not great, > > but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track > > over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be > > eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in > > the wiki) > > > > http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg > > http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg > > > > > > These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller > > and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter. > > tracktype? surface? > > > > http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg > > http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg > > > > > > This kind of track is often found in places with long-time > > settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They > > tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is > > smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or > > a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just > > gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important, > > their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles > > there are small tractors or motorbikes. > > > > > > Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths > > as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas. > > > > Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time. > > > > http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg > > > > > > This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard > > and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account > > the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe? > > > > > > Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the > > "drivability" of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can > > use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough > > sometimes. > > > > > > Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the > > list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the > > things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time > > tracks are widely used. > > > > > > > > 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri <lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi>: > > 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 tracktype > > wasn't meant to be about "usable or not", but about > > the most influential attribute of the road construction > > (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes), > > of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the > > conditions road users see on any ways not up to > > the highway standards of the present day. > > > > So it's a description of a scale from "hard materials only" > > to "soft materials only". The connection to "maintained" > > is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a > > good approximation of the maintenance, but there can > > be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?) > > maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on > > exposed solid rock is "hard materials only" even if nobody > > ever raised a finger to "build" the way. > > > > A user can deduce expectations from the combination > > of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and > > local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=* > > if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users. > > > > There can not be anything beyond "soft materials only", > > that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively used > > the tag to describe their assessment of "should i use or > > not", the meaning of the tag has diverged from the > > use in other regions, and we'll never know which one > > was meant. (Luckily, there's seldom any major difference > > - it's probably be the rare extreme cases that can be in > > disagreement.) > > > > If mappers want to tag a subjective "should i use it", > > it should be some other tag if the hard/soft materials > > scale doesn't suit them. But for which road user? > > > > -- > > Alv > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
