4WD only tags

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

4WD only tags

Li Xia
Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.

By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further complicate the issue.

Li.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

David Bannon-2
 
Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be that way.

The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are potentially sending people down roads that they, and their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will definitely happen.

The routing people are saying "but these tags don't even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".

And as to subjective, while there will always be borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard to divide tracks up into -

* 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you have been warned.

* 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real one with (eg) low ratio.

* 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys, they need experience and modified vehicles. This is a recent addition !

I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the vast majority of the tracks we graded.

David




----- Original Message -----
From:
"Li Xia" <[hidden email]>

To:
"David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
"OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
Subject:
4WD only tags


Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.

By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further complicate the issue.

Li.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

Stephen Hope
David,

When we first proposed (and started using) the 4wd_only tag, there was a lot of pushback from people who complained that it was not a verifiable tag. Track type had the same response. We were able to show them that there are signs all over Australia that say 4WD only at the start of a road.  I think you'll get a lot of reaction trying to add levels of 4WD required where there are no signs to point at.  Feel free to advocate it, though, and to tag that way. If enough people tag things in a certain way, that's the surest way of setting a standard.


Stephen


On 4 November 2012 13:41, David Bannon <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be that way.

The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are potentially sending people down roads that they, and their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will definitely happen.

The routing people are saying "but these tags don't even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".

And as to subjective, while there will always be borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard to divide tracks up into -

* 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you have been warned.

* 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real one with (eg) low ratio.

* 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys, they need experience and modified vehicles. This is a recent addition !

I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the vast majority of the tracks we graded.

David




----- Original Message -----
From:
"Li Xia" <[hidden email]>

To:
"David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
"OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
Subject:
4WD only tags



Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.

By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further complicate the issue.

Li.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

Li Xia
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of comprehension and would not make use of these additional attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.

BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and cast a vote.

Li.

On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:

 
Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be that way.

The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are potentially sending people down roads that they, and their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will definitely happen.

The routing people are saying "but these tags don't even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".

And as to subjective, while there will always be borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard to divide tracks up into -

* 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you have been warned.

* 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real one with (eg) low ratio.

* 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys, they need experience and modified vehicles. This is a recent addition !

I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the vast majority of the tracks we graded.

David




----- Original Message -----
From:
"Li Xia" <[hidden email]>

To:
"David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
"OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
Subject:
4WD only tags


Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.

By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further complicate the issue.

Li.


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

David Bannon-2

Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a response to a related matter. Soon.

And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your input I will really need !

Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?

David
 



----- Original Message -----
From:
"Li Xia" <[hidden email]>

To:
"David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
"OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
Subject:
Re: 4WD only tags


Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of comprehension and would not make use of these additional attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.

BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and cast a vote.

Li.

On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:

 
Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be that way.

The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are potentially sending people down roads that they, and their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will definitely happen.

The routing people are saying "but these tags don't even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".

And as to subjective, while there will always be borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard to divide tracks up into -

* 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you have been warned.

* 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real one with (eg) low ratio.

* 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys, they need experience and modified vehicles. This is a recent addition !

I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the vast majority of the tracks we graded.

David




----- Original Message -----
From:
"Li Xia" <[hidden email]>

To:
"David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
"OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
Subject:
4WD only tags


Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.

By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further complicate the issue.

Li.


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

Li Xia
No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch out ;-)

A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.

Li.

On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:


Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a response to a related matter. Soon.

And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your input I will really need !

Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?

David
 



----- Original Message -----
From:
"Li Xia" <[hidden email]>

To:
"David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
"OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
Subject:
Re: 4WD only tags


Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of comprehension and would not make use of these additional attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.

BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and cast a vote.

Li.

On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:

 
Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a 4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other data in the OSM database. Must be that way.

The real issue is how important the data is. As I have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are potentially sending people down roads that they, and their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will definitely happen.

The routing people are saying "but these tags don't even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".

And as to subjective, while there will always be borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard to divide tracks up into -

* 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you have been warned.

* 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real one with (eg) low ratio.

* 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys, they need experience and modified vehicles. This is a recent addition !

I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the vast majority of the tracks we graded.

David




----- Original Message -----
From:
"Li Xia" <[hidden email]>

To:
"David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
"OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
Subject:
4WD only tags


Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.

By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to the complexity because it's kind of subjective as to which roads/tracks are traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor adding another option for this key will further complicate the issue.

Li.



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

Steve Bennett-3
In reply to this post by Stephen Hope
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Stephen Hope <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When we first proposed (and started using) the 4wd_only tag, there was a lot
> of pushback from people who complained that it was not a verifiable tag.
> Track type had the same response. We were able to show them that there are
> signs all over Australia that say 4WD only at the start of a road.  I think
> you'll get a lot of reaction trying to add levels of 4WD required where
> there are no signs to point at.  Feel free to advocate it, though, and to
> tag that way. If enough people tag things in a certain way, that's the
> surest way of setting a standard.

So if there is a sign "4WD only", then we tag it 4wd_only=yes, even if
it otherwise it might look like a 2WD road? (That is, the road
authority's assessment trumps our own?)

Steve

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Li Xia

OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !

Here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
is my very early draft. You and everyone else is welcome to get stuck
into it, I am not thin skinned !

The OSM proposal page says to to be verbose, no one need tell me to be
verbose ! So if its too long, please indicate what needs removing. And
obviously, error and omissions ....

I am quite unhappy that it really ends up undercutting the 4wd_only tag,
they can coexist but I wonder if they will if this is successful. Its a
shame really, I like 4wd_only and have used it but as I developed my
arguments it became clear to me that we need a finer grain and its
probably easier to add levels to tracktype than it is to 4wd_only. And
it will be easier to get these levels rendered if we go for tracktype.

David

David




On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 +1100, Li Xia wrote:

> No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
> out ;-)
>
>
> A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
>
>
> Li.
>
> On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
> > response to a related matter. Soon.
> >
> > And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
> > input I will really need !
> >
> > Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?
> >
> > David
> >  
> >
> >
> >        
> >         ----- Original Message -----
> >         From:
> >         "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
> >        
> >         To:
> >         "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
> >         Cc:
> >         "OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
> >         Sent:
> >         Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
> >         Subject:
> >         Re: 4WD only tags
> >        
> >        
> >         Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to
> >         simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of
> >         comprehension and would not make use of these additional
> >         attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data
> >         to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and
> >         navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
> >        
> >        
> >         BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and
> >         cast a vote.
> >        
> >        
> >         Li.
> >        
> >         On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> >        
> >                  
> >                 Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a
> >                 4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other
> >                 data in the OSM database. Must be that way.
> >                
> >                 The real issue is how important the data is. As I
> >                 have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being
> >                 rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are
> >                 potentially sending people down roads that they, and
> >                 their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will
> >                 definitely happen.
> >                
> >                 The routing people are saying "but these tags don't
> >                 even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".
> >                
> >                 And as to subjective, while there will always be
> >                 borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard
> >                 to divide tracks up into -
> >                
> >                 * 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a
> >                 conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you
> >                 have been warned.
> >                
> >                 * 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real
> >                 one with (eg) low ratio.
> >                
> >                 * 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys,
> >                 they need experience and modified vehicles. This is
> >                 a recent addition !
> >                
> >                 I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of
> >                 weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the
> >                 vast majority of the tracks we graded.
> >                
> >                 David
> >                
> >                
> >                
> >                        
> >                         ----- Original Message -----
> >                         From:
> >                         "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
> >                        
> >                         To:
> >                         "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
> >                         Cc:
> >                         "OSM Australian Talk List"
> >                         <[hidden email]>
> >                         Sent:
> >                         Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
> >                         Subject:
> >                         4WD only tags
> >                        
> >                        
> >                         Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.
> >                        
> >                         By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to
> >                         the complexity because it's kind of
> >                         subjective as to which roads/tracks are
> >                         traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor
> >                         adding another option for this key will
> >                         further complicate the issue.
> >                        
> >                         Li.
> >        
> >        
>
>



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-3

Maybe the issue is that they cannot, in practice, sign every such bush
track ?

And I don't want them using my taxes to try ! Nope, I think its up to us
to make those decisions. And, dare I say it, apply common sense.

David

 

On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 14:22 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Stephen Hope <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > When we first proposed (and started using) the 4wd_only tag, there was a lot
> > of pushback from people who complained that it was not a verifiable tag.
> > Track type had the same response. We were able to show them that there are
> > signs all over Australia that say 4WD only at the start of a road.  I think
> > you'll get a lot of reaction trying to add levels of 4WD required where
> > there are no signs to point at.  Feel free to advocate it, though, and to
> > tag that way. If enough people tag things in a certain way, that's the
> > surest way of setting a standard.
>
> So if there is a sign "4WD only", then we tag it 4wd_only=yes, even if
> it otherwise it might look like a 2WD road? (That is, the road
> authority's assessment trumps our own?)
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

Sam Couter-2
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-3
Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So if there is a sign "4WD only", then we tag it 4wd_only=yes, even if
> it otherwise it might look like a 2WD road? (That is, the road
> authority's assessment trumps our own?)

The National Park's assessment has at least one important attribute:
It's a legal requirement. You can be fined if you drive a 2WD vehicle on
a track signposted "4WD only". It's not a suggestion or guideline.
--
Sam Couter         |  mailto:[hidden email]
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

Ian Sergeant-2
On 6 November 2012 19:27, Sam Couter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So if there is a sign "4WD only", then we tag it 4wd_only=yes, even if
> it otherwise it might look like a 2WD road? (That is, the road
> authority's assessment trumps our own?)

The National Park's assessment has at least one important attribute:
It's a legal requirement. You can be fined if you drive a 2WD vehicle on
a track signposted "4WD only". It's not a suggestion or guideline.


Do we want to consider

4wd_only=designated - to indicated the law

and

4wd_only=yes - to indicate the suitability of the road?

Apologies if this has been suggested and discounted before.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

David Bannon-2

I think thats what the access tag is for ?

"Access values are used to describe the legal access for highway=*"

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

However, as you could forcaste, there is no 4x4 or 4wd value approved.

david


On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 20:28 +1100, Ian Sergeant wrote:

> On 6 November 2012 19:27, Sam Couter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>         Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>         > So if there is a sign "4WD only", then we tag it
>         4wd_only=yes, even if
>         > it otherwise it might look like a 2WD road? (That is, the
>         road
>         > authority's assessment trumps our own?)
>        
>        
>         The National Park's assessment has at least one important
>         attribute:
>         It's a legal requirement. You can be fined if you drive a 2WD
>         vehicle on
>         a track signposted "4WD only". It's not a suggestion or
>         guideline.
>        
>
> Do we want to consider
>
> 4wd_only=designated - to indicated the law
>
> and
>
> 4wd_only=yes - to indicate the suitability of the road?
>
> Apologies if this has been suggested and discounted before.
>
> Ian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

Li Xia
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
Hi David,

Just scanned your personal page quickly while i had spare time so sorry up front if i missed anything.

A quick comment on the proposed grading. According to your proposal of tagging grades 6-8, what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?

Li.


On 06/11/2012, at 2:23 PM, David Bannon wrote:

>
> OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !
>
> Here
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
> is my very early draft. You and everyone else is welcome to get stuck
> into it, I am not thin skinned !
>
> The OSM proposal page says to to be verbose, no one need tell me to be
> verbose ! So if its too long, please indicate what needs removing. And
> obviously, error and omissions ....
>
> I am quite unhappy that it really ends up undercutting the 4wd_only tag,
> they can coexist but I wonder if they will if this is successful. Its a
> shame really, I like 4wd_only and have used it but as I developed my
> arguments it became clear to me that we need a finer grain and its
> probably easier to add levels to tracktype than it is to 4wd_only. And
> it will be easier to get these levels rendered if we go for tracktype.
>
> David
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
>> No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
>> out ;-)
>>
>>
>> A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
>>
>>
>> Li.
>>
>> On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
>>> response to a related matter. Soon.
>>>
>>> And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
>>> input I will really need !
>>>
>>> Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        ----- Original Message -----
>>>        From:
>>>        "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>        To:
>>>        "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
>>>        Cc:
>>>        "OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
>>>        Sent:
>>>        Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
>>>        Subject:
>>>        Re: 4WD only tags
>>>
>>>
>>>        Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to
>>>        simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of
>>>        comprehension and would not make use of these additional
>>>        attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data
>>>        to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and
>>>        navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>        BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and
>>>        cast a vote.
>>>
>>>
>>>        Li.
>>>
>>>        On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>                Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a
>>>                4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other
>>>                data in the OSM database. Must be that way.
>>>
>>>                The real issue is how important the data is. As I
>>>                have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being
>>>                rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are
>>>                potentially sending people down roads that they, and
>>>                their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will
>>>                definitely happen.
>>>
>>>                The routing people are saying "but these tags don't
>>>                even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".
>>>
>>>                And as to subjective, while there will always be
>>>                borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard
>>>                to divide tracks up into -
>>>
>>>                * 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a
>>>                conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you
>>>                have been warned.
>>>
>>>                * 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real
>>>                one with (eg) low ratio.
>>>
>>>                * 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys,
>>>                they need experience and modified vehicles. This is
>>>                a recent addition !
>>>
>>>                I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of
>>>                weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the
>>>                vast majority of the tracks we graded.
>>>
>>>                David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                        ----- Original Message -----
>>>                        From:
>>>                        "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>                        To:
>>>                        "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
>>>                        Cc:
>>>                        "OSM Australian Talk List"
>>>                        <[hidden email]>
>>>                        Sent:
>>>                        Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
>>>                        Subject:
>>>                        4WD only tags
>>>
>>>
>>>                        Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.
>>>
>>>                        By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to
>>>                        the complexity because it's kind of
>>>                        subjective as to which roads/tracks are
>>>                        traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor
>>>                        adding another option for this key will
>>>                        further complicate the issue.
>>>
>>>                        Li.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

David Bannon-2
Hello Li

> what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?

Technically I'd see no issue having both those key combos present. In
practice not good in that one must be wrong but that won't upset OSM.

In the mainstream maps, the way should be rendered according to grade6.
The renderers already recognise tracktype so its relatively easy to
extend to grades 6, 7 and 8. The renderers don't observe 4wd_only and
sadly probably won't.  

But other applications will still be free to note one or the other of
course. How they cope if they actually observe both and note the
conflict I guess is up to the app it self.

David

On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 23:32 +1100, Li Xia wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Just scanned your personal page quickly while i had spare time so sorry up front if i missed anything.
>
> A quick comment on the proposed grading. According to your proposal of tagging grades 6-8, what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?
>
> Li.
>
>
> On 06/11/2012, at 2:23 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> >
> > OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !
> >
> > Here
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
> > is my very early draft. You and everyone else is welcome to get stuck
> > into it, I am not thin skinned !
> >
> > The OSM proposal page says to to be verbose, no one need tell me to be
> > verbose ! So if its too long, please indicate what needs removing. And
> > obviously, error and omissions ....
> >
> > I am quite unhappy that it really ends up undercutting the 4wd_only tag,
> > they can coexist but I wonder if they will if this is successful. Its a
> > shame really, I like 4wd_only and have used it but as I developed my
> > arguments it became clear to me that we need a finer grain and its
> > probably easier to add levels to tracktype than it is to 4wd_only. And
> > it will be easier to get these levels rendered if we go for tracktype.
> >
> > David
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
> >> No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
> >> out ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >> A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
> >>
> >>
> >> Li.
> >>
> >> On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
> >>> response to a related matter. Soon.
> >>>
> >>> And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
> >>> input I will really need !
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>        ----- Original Message -----
> >>>        From:
> >>>        "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>>        To:
> >>>        "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
> >>>        Cc:
> >>>        "OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
> >>>        Sent:
> >>>        Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
> >>>        Subject:
> >>>        Re: 4WD only tags
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>        Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to
> >>>        simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of
> >>>        comprehension and would not make use of these additional
> >>>        attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data
> >>>        to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and
> >>>        navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>        BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and
> >>>        cast a vote.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>        Li.
> >>>
> >>>        On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>                Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a
> >>>                4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other
> >>>                data in the OSM database. Must be that way.
> >>>
> >>>                The real issue is how important the data is. As I
> >>>                have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being
> >>>                rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are
> >>>                potentially sending people down roads that they, and
> >>>                their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will
> >>>                definitely happen.
> >>>
> >>>                The routing people are saying "but these tags don't
> >>>                even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".
> >>>
> >>>                And as to subjective, while there will always be
> >>>                borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard
> >>>                to divide tracks up into -
> >>>
> >>>                * 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a
> >>>                conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you
> >>>                have been warned.
> >>>
> >>>                * 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real
> >>>                one with (eg) low ratio.
> >>>
> >>>                * 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys,
> >>>                they need experience and modified vehicles. This is
> >>>                a recent addition !
> >>>
> >>>                I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of
> >>>                weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the
> >>>                vast majority of the tracks we graded.
> >>>
> >>>                David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>                        ----- Original Message -----
> >>>                        From:
> >>>                        "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>>                        To:
> >>>                        "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
> >>>                        Cc:
> >>>                        "OSM Australian Talk List"
> >>>                        <[hidden email]>
> >>>                        Sent:
> >>>                        Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
> >>>                        Subject:
> >>>                        4WD only tags
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>                        Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.
> >>>
> >>>                        By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to
> >>>                        the complexity because it's kind of
> >>>                        subjective as to which roads/tracks are
> >>>                        traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor
> >>>                        adding another option for this key will
> >>>                        further complicate the issue.
> >>>
> >>>                        Li.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

Li Xia
Hi David,

Here is an example of why the grading combined with 4WD_only tags may not work in conjunction in rendering. let's say all 4WD tracks are rendered using dotted lines (very common on raster maps and widely adopted). What happens when it already 4wd_only=yes but it's also tagged as grade 6? Which tag should take priority?

Isn't 4wd_only=yes and 4WD recommended some what contradicting?

Li.

On 07/11/2012, at 8:20 PM, David Bannon wrote:

> Hello Li
>
>> what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?
>
> Technically I'd see no issue having both those key combos present. In
> practice not good in that one must be wrong but that won't upset OSM.
>
> In the mainstream maps, the way should be rendered according to grade6.
> The renderers already recognise tracktype so its relatively easy to
> extend to grades 6, 7 and 8. The renderers don't observe 4wd_only and
> sadly probably won't.  
>
> But other applications will still be free to note one or the other of
> course. How they cope if they actually observe both and note the
> conflict I guess is up to the app it self.
>
> David
>
> On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 23:32 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Just scanned your personal page quickly while i had spare time so sorry up front if i missed anything.
>>
>> A quick comment on the proposed grading. According to your proposal of tagging grades 6-8, what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?
>>
>> Li.
>>
>>
>> On 06/11/2012, at 2:23 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !
>>>
>>> Here
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
>>> is my very early draft. You and everyone else is welcome to get stuck
>>> into it, I am not thin skinned !
>>>
>>> The OSM proposal page says to to be verbose, no one need tell me to be
>>> verbose ! So if its too long, please indicate what needs removing. And
>>> obviously, error and omissions ....
>>>
>>> I am quite unhappy that it really ends up undercutting the 4wd_only tag,
>>> they can coexist but I wonder if they will if this is successful. Its a
>>> shame really, I like 4wd_only and have used it but as I developed my
>>> arguments it became clear to me that we need a finer grain and its
>>> probably easier to add levels to tracktype than it is to 4wd_only. And
>>> it will be easier to get these levels rendered if we go for tracktype.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
>>>> No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
>>>> out ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Li.
>>>>
>>>> On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
>>>>> response to a related matter. Soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
>>>>> input I will really need !
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>       From:
>>>>>       "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>       To:
>>>>>       "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>       Cc:
>>>>>       "OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>       Sent:
>>>>>       Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
>>>>>       Subject:
>>>>>       Re: 4WD only tags
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to
>>>>>       simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of
>>>>>       comprehension and would not make use of these additional
>>>>>       attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data
>>>>>       to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and
>>>>>       navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and
>>>>>       cast a vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Li.
>>>>>
>>>>>       On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>               Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a
>>>>>               4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other
>>>>>               data in the OSM database. Must be that way.
>>>>>
>>>>>               The real issue is how important the data is. As I
>>>>>               have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being
>>>>>               rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are
>>>>>               potentially sending people down roads that they, and
>>>>>               their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will
>>>>>               definitely happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>               The routing people are saying "but these tags don't
>>>>>               even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".
>>>>>
>>>>>               And as to subjective, while there will always be
>>>>>               borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard
>>>>>               to divide tracks up into -
>>>>>
>>>>>               * 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a
>>>>>               conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you
>>>>>               have been warned.
>>>>>
>>>>>               * 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real
>>>>>               one with (eg) low ratio.
>>>>>
>>>>>               * 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys,
>>>>>               they need experience and modified vehicles. This is
>>>>>               a recent addition !
>>>>>
>>>>>               I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of
>>>>>               weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the
>>>>>               vast majority of the tracks we graded.
>>>>>
>>>>>               David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                       ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>                       From:
>>>>>                       "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>                       To:
>>>>>                       "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>                       Cc:
>>>>>                       "OSM Australian Talk List"
>>>>>                       <[hidden email]>
>>>>>                       Sent:
>>>>>                       Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
>>>>>                       Subject:
>>>>>                       4WD only tags
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                       Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.
>>>>>
>>>>>                       By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to
>>>>>                       the complexity because it's kind of
>>>>>                       subjective as to which roads/tracks are
>>>>>                       traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor
>>>>>                       adding another option for this key will
>>>>>                       further complicate the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>                       Li.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4WD only tags

David Bannon-2

Hi Li, I still don't see a problem.

Firstly, I am not aware of any publicly visible map that uses the
4wd_Only tag. Maybe I am wrong, can you point me to one ?

But even if there is, and it renderes as you say, then its still OK
really. We'd see a dotted line and "4wd Recommended" appended to the
name. Like the rest of the OSM database, incorrect date entered will
give incorrect results.

I'd like to see all grade5, grade6, grade7 and grade8 roads rendered as
a single or double dotted line, Some, depending on their highway= tag
may have a coloured fill. The 6, 7 and 8 have text appended to the name,
5 does not.

In your example, grade6 will have "4wd Recommended) appended but we know
its also got 4wd_Only=yes set. Well thats wrong but its wrong because
the wrong tags have been stored in the database. If someone spots it,
maybe they will fix it and all will be good. Even if it does not get
fixed, people will still be alerted to the fact that it might be a road
needing thinking about. Thats better that what we have now were the
mainstream renderers ignore 4wd_only and we don't have a tracktype
higher than grade5.

David  



On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 21:49 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Here is an example of why the grading combined with 4WD_only tags may not work in

> conjunction in rendering. let's say all 4WD tracks are rendered using dotted lines

> (very common on raster maps and widely adopted). What happens when it already

> 4wd_only=yes but it's also tagged as grade 6? Which tag should take priority?
>
> Isn't 4wd_only=yes and 4WD recommended some what contradicting?
>
> Li.
>
> On 07/11/2012, at 8:20 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> > Hello Li
> >
> >> what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?
> >
> > Technically I'd see no issue having both those key combos present. In
> > practice not good in that one must be wrong but that won't upset OSM.
> >
> > In the mainstream maps, the way should be rendered according to grade6.
> > The renderers already recognise tracktype so its relatively easy to
> > extend to grades 6, 7 and 8. The renderers don't observe 4wd_only and
> > sadly probably won't.  
> >
> > But other applications will still be free to note one or the other of
> > course. How they cope if they actually observe both and note the
> > conflict I guess is up to the app it self.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 23:32 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> Just scanned your personal page quickly while i had spare time so sorry up front if i missed anything.
> >>
> >> A quick comment on the proposed grading. According to your proposal of tagging grades 6-8, what happens when a track is tagged with 4wd_only=yes and grade=6?
> >>
> >> Li.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/11/2012, at 2:23 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> OK Li, you ask and you shall receive !
> >>>
> >>> Here
> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
> >>> is my very early draft. You and everyone else is welcome to get stuck
> >>> into it, I am not thin skinned !
> >>>
> >>> The OSM proposal page says to to be verbose, no one need tell me to be
> >>> verbose ! So if its too long, please indicate what needs removing. And
> >>> obviously, error and omissions ....
> >>>
> >>> I am quite unhappy that it really ends up undercutting the 4wd_only tag,
> >>> they can coexist but I wonder if they will if this is successful. Its a
> >>> shame really, I like 4wd_only and have used it but as I developed my
> >>> arguments it became clear to me that we need a finer grain and its
> >>> probably easier to add levels to tracktype than it is to 4wd_only. And
> >>> it will be easier to get these levels rendered if we go for tracktype.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 +1100, Li Xia wrote:
> >>>> No probs david, and you'll be getting plenty of input from me, watch
> >>>> out ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A draft would be great. Let me know when it's ready to review.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Li.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 05/11/2012, at 9:10 AM, David Bannon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks Li, I have not put that proposal up yet, waiting on a
> >>>>> response to a related matter. Soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And when I do, I'll not be wanting just your vote, it will be your
> >>>>> input I will really need !
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe I should put a draft up on my personal page while we wait ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>       From:
> >>>>>       "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       To:
> >>>>>       "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>       Cc:
> >>>>>       "OSM Australian Talk List" <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>       Sent:
> >>>>>       Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:37:52 +1100
> >>>>>       Subject:
> >>>>>       Re: 4WD only tags
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       Hi David, although my opinion is that most render's try to
> >>>>>       simplify the the stylesheet so the map for ease of
> >>>>>       comprehension and would not make use of these additional
> >>>>>       attributes, I see your point and agree that it's useful data
> >>>>>       to have. Since my company focuses on 4WD maps and
> >>>>>       navigation, we will certainly take full advantage of this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       BTW, do you have the link to the proposal page? Will go and
> >>>>>       cast a vote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       Li.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       On 04/11/2012, at 2:41 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               Li, I beg to differ. While I agree that grading of a
> >>>>>               4x4 track is subjective, so is much of the other
> >>>>>               data in the OSM database. Must be that way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               The real issue is how important the data is. As I
> >>>>>               have mentioned, I am concerned that maps are being
> >>>>>               rendered that ignore this data. Routing engines are
> >>>>>               potentially sending people down roads that they, and
> >>>>>               their vehicles are ill suited to. Bad things will
> >>>>>               definitely happen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               The routing people are saying "but these tags don't
> >>>>>               even show on the OSM maps, why should we worry ?".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               And as to subjective, while there will always be
> >>>>>               borderline cases, I don't think it would be too hard
> >>>>>               to divide tracks up into -
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               * 4x4 recommended - you will might be OK in a
> >>>>>               conventional car or (better still) an SUV but you
> >>>>>               have been warned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               * 4x4 required - you really need a stock 4x4, a real
> >>>>>               one with (eg) low ratio.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               * 4x4 extreme - this is for the death or glory boys,
> >>>>>               they need experience and modified vehicles. This is
> >>>>>               a recent addition !
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               I am pretty sure that if you and I spent a couple of
> >>>>>               weeks having some driving fun, we'd agree on the
> >>>>>               vast majority of the tracks we graded.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>               David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                       ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>                       From:
> >>>>>                       "Li Xia" <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                       To:
> >>>>>                       "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>                       Cc:
> >>>>>                       "OSM Australian Talk List"
> >>>>>                       <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>                       Sent:
> >>>>>                       Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:08:22 +1100
> >>>>>                       Subject:
> >>>>>                       4WD only tags
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                       Hi David, just my 2 cents on 4WD_only tags.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                       By adding a 4x4 recommended tag will add to
> >>>>>                       the complexity because it's kind of
> >>>>>                       subjective as to which roads/tracks are
> >>>>>                       traversable in a 2WD vehicle, therefor
> >>>>>                       adding another option for this key will
> >>>>>                       further complicate the issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                       Li.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

tagging 4WD and dirt roads - want it ?

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2

Righto folks, I have not had a lot of feedback about the drafted
proposal to tidy up how 4x4 tracks (and other) are described. I added a
bit about what happens when tags conflict after Li queried that but
thats all !

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal

Its fair to say that we'll need Australian votes to get this approved.
Can you please indicate that you will vote, either yes or no, before I
go to the trouble of formally putting the proposal up ?

Suggestions are also obviously very welcome.

Thanks.

David



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - want it ?

Andrew Harvey-3
On 10/11/12 12:33, David Bannon wrote:

>
> Righto folks, I have not had a lot of feedback about the drafted
> proposal to tidy up how 4x4 tracks (and other) are described. I added a
> bit about what happens when tags conflict after Li queried that but
> thats all !
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
>
> Its fair to say that we'll need Australian votes to get this approved.
> Can you please indicate that you will vote, either yes or no, before I
> go to the trouble of formally putting the proposal up ?
>
> Suggestions are also obviously very welcome.
Hi David,

To be honest I haven't been following the discussion but I agree that it
is important to sort this out so I'm going to provide my thoughts.

Among other things OSM in interested in mapping the location and
topology of thoroughfares which exist on this planet. Accompanying this
is attributes which provide more details about the through fare.

These attributes include,
* nomenclature of the thoroughfares (name, *name, name:lang, ref, etc.)
* legal regulations on the use of the thoroughfares (access, maxspeed,
  maxheight, maxweight, turn restrictions)
* type of use
  *  highway classification (residential, primary) describes for which
     purpose the road is mainly used for
  * which vehicles is it primarily intended to support (in OSM inferred
    by the key and sometimes value, such as railway=, highway=,
    highway=footway, bicycle=, maxheight:physical=, etc.)
* physical attributes (surface, bridge, tunnel, width, lanes)
  * make up of the surface's top layer
    * what is the top layer material covering this thoroughfare
      concrete, asphalt, clay, grass, soil, rock
    * what is the form of that material covering this thoroughfare
      pavers (large 25m2 slabs, medium 0.25m2 blocks, small bricks),
      rubble (large bear sized boulders, head sized rocks, or grape
      sized pebbles), compacted/solid
    * what is the stability/friction of the surface (do I need a 4wd to
      prevent sliding out?), perhaps can be implied by surface x form.

These attributes need to be non-subjective so that they can be applied
universally, collaboratively and consistently across the globe. They
also need to be truthfully representations of what actually exists on
the ground.

I think it is best to describe the real world with attributes like
these. It is an accurate representations yet allows users to decide
higher lever questions like "I only have a standard 2wd car, not a 4wd
one. Should I take road A or B?" by looking at the attributes which are
important to them, be it traction of the road surface (ice, clay,
dirt...), smoothness (frequency and amplitude of the surface profile).

This way both a 4 wheel drive Ferrari and a 4wd Jeep can make a good
determination of whether they should take route A or B.

Furthermore, the current tracktype grades although not well defined
essentially measure the "compactness" of a surface. If you try to bring
4wd only into the mix it could become complicated as you can very well
have paved track or heavily compacted hardcore but so uneven and with
large gaps that you would need the large wheels and ground clearance of
a 4wd to traverse; yet have another unpaved uncompacted track with lack
of hard materials with the same requirement on a 4wd due to uneven
ground. This isn't as you suggest, "bad data that needs to be fixed by
mappers."

In summary, I would ask you to pull out attributes of a thoroughfare
which make it 4wd only and tag those instead.


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - want it ?

David Bannon-2
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 14:54 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> ......
>In summary, I would ask you to pull out attributes of a thoroughfare
> which make it 4wd only and tag those instead.


Andrew, thanks for the very carefully considered response.

I agree with just about all the points you make but suggest your
conclusion may not quite address the driver for this proposal. This is
about getting knowledge into the hands of end users. Safety is a key
factor, I am sure you heard someone died on an outback track only two or
three days ago.

What I am trying to do is get a reasonably easy to understand and use
model in place so mappers put data into the database in a consistent way
and, critically, the rendering people and the routing people use it. At
present, we have a large number of tags that relate to this space but
the only one the renderers use is tracktype. They ignore
surface=unpaved, 4wd_Only, smoothness= and so on.

Your suggestion, that we focus on specific characteristics of the road
and describe them is a good thing and one I'd support if you were to
start working on it as a proposal. But it does not apply here.

While having breakfast I could easily think of ten items I'd like to add
to your list of road characteristics, I'm quite sure that if we sat a
few more 4wders around the table we could hit twenty in no time. If we
convert them all to tags we'd have two real and pressing problems -

1. Mappers could not cope with that many tags to address in a consistent
way, even if they did, think of the extra data that would be, in many
cases unnecessary. Subsequent validating of such a fine grain data would
be a daunting task.

2. Importantly - it would be impossible to get the rendering people to
even consider displaying such a range of data. And if the mainstream
rendering engines don't show it, the routing people ignore it. Truth is,
when an end user uses OSM to decide to go a particular way, he/she does
not fire up JOSM and examine the tags on each way, they look at a map,
or, worryingly, rely on a routing tool.

I believe we need something simpler, something that is an extension of a
tag that is already rendered, for example on the OSM website. Yes,
tracktype does focus on compactness at present but thats because in the
range of roads it currently addresses, thats the issue. I propose we
extent that range of roads.

WRT the mention of "bad data that needs to be fixed", you must note that
this proposal does not make that issue any worse, indeed, by focusing on
one linear tag, tracktype, it might actually help. The problem is not
strictly linear but can be projected onto a linear tracktype scale at
the granularity proposed given the sort of knowledge any reasonably
experienced 4wder has.  Importantly, it's better than nothing and that,
I am afraid, is the likely alternative.

David



> Furthermore, the current tracktype grades although not well defined
> essentially measure the "compactness" of a surface. If you try to bring
> 4wd only into the mix it could become complicated as you can very well
> have paved track or heavily compacted hardcore but so uneven and with
> large gaps that you would need the large wheels and ground clearance of
> a 4wd to traverse; yet have another unpaved uncompacted track with lack
> of hard materials with the same requirement on a 4wd due to uneven
> ground. This isn't as you suggest, "bad data that needs to be fixed by
> mappers."
>
> In summary, I would ask you to pull out attributes of a thoroughfare
> which make it 4wd only and tag those instead.
>



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - want it ?

Andrew Harvey-3
On 11/11/12 09:31, David Bannon wrote:
> Andrew, thanks for the very carefully considered response.
>
> I agree with just about all the points you make but suggest your
> conclusion may not quite address the driver for this proposal. This is
> about getting knowledge into the hands of end users. Safety is a key
> factor, I am sure you heard someone died on an outback track only two or
> three days ago.

I can defiantly relate to the driving force here. I myself have looked
at the osm mapnik map and planned a route based on it, only to find
myself reaching unexpected dirt (or worse sand) 20km into the road. I
wasn't prepared for the road becoming unpaved, but the tragedy was that
the road was actually accurately mapped out with surface tags, I just
never downloaded the data before the trip to find which sections were
paved and which were unpaved.

This is a complete failure of the cartography and if it represented
unpaved vs paved as dotted casing then I would have been prepared and
expecting the surface change along the road.

>
> What I am trying to do is get a reasonably easy to understand and use
> model in place so mappers put data into the database in a consistent way
> and, critically, the rendering people and the routing people use it. At
> present, we have a large number of tags that relate to this space but
> the only one the renderers use is tracktype. They ignore
> surface=unpaved, 4wd_Only, smoothness= and so on.
>
> Your suggestion, that we focus on specific characteristics of the road
> and describe them is a good thing and one I'd support if you were to
> start working on it as a proposal. But it does not apply here.
>
> While having breakfast I could easily think of ten items I'd like to add
> to your list of road characteristics, I'm quite sure that if we sat a
> few more 4wders around the table we could hit twenty in no time. If we
> convert them all to tags we'd have two real and pressing problems -
>
> 1. Mappers could not cope with that many tags to address in a consistent
> way, even if they did, think of the extra data that would be, in many
> cases unnecessary. Subsequent validating of such a fine grain data would
> be a daunting task.
>
> 2. Importantly - it would be impossible to get the rendering people to
> even consider displaying such a range of data. And if the mainstream
> rendering engines don't show it, the routing people ignore it. Truth is,
> when an end user uses OSM to decide to go a particular way, he/she does
> not fire up JOSM and examine the tags on each way, they look at a map,
> or, worryingly, rely on a routing tool.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Although I can synthesis with this, at the end of the day, osm projects
build the database, not a cartographic map.

You are free to make your own rendering style which represents surface
tags, similarly you are free to define your own routing rules which
determine how a routing engine chooses a route.


>
> I believe we need something simpler, something that is an extension of a
> tag that is already rendered, for example on the OSM website. Yes,
> tracktype does focus on compactness at present but thats because in the
> range of roads it currently addresses, thats the issue. I propose we
> extent that range of roads.

I think your extension proposal make is more complicated as it is
unclear what the scale represents since it isn't a linear scale for one
attribute. Admittedly the current tracktype tag also suffers from this
problem, but the wiki page does suggest the two attributes represented
separately as surface= and smoothness=.

It does seem to me that accurately taging surface (gives you an
indication if you need a 4wd for traction; --I'm not a 4wd user, so I
may be completely wrong about this), and smoothness (if you need a 4wd
for clearance) would sufficiently meet your requirements. If only it was
that easy... We have,

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/surface_unification
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/usability
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:Sac_scale
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes

>
> WRT the mention of "bad data that needs to be fixed", you must note that
> this proposal does not make that issue any worse, indeed, by focusing on
> one linear tag, tracktype, it might actually help. The problem is not
> strictly linear but can be projected onto a linear tracktype scale at
> the granularity proposed given the sort of knowledge any reasonably
> experienced 4wder has.  Importantly, it's better than nothing and that,
> I am afraid, is the likely alternative.

Although this issue does affect Australia due to the nature of the
outback, it is a global issue. I think it would be best to take your
thoughts to the global tagging list at let the discussion happen there.



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
12