4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?

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

4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?

David Bannon-2

Folks, you have every right to call me fickle  But maybe we need to be realistic ? This is a follow up to the discussion about advice that appears on Australian_Tagging_Guidelines and a programme to see better default rendering of dirt and 4x4 roads.

Firstly, I approve of the 4wd_only tag, I have used it and thinks its a excellent description. However, putting together my arguments I plan to present to the OSM Guardians, I have been looking at alternatives I have not used tracktype in the past, mainly because I did not like its uninformative discriptions and the fact that it was described as being "of limited relevance to Australia". Its interesting to see just how many times 4wd_only is used compared to tracktype, here are some stats -

4wd_only (yes and recommended)
Australia  - 930
Rest of the world -  264

tracktype (grades 1-5)
Australia - about 6000
Rest of the world - about 127,000

Now, I am not suggesting that tracktype is a dropin replacement for 4wd_only, far from it, the definition I read says to me it stops before 4wd_only (see  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype ) but we might find getting a grade 6 and grade 7 (or better still, 4wdRecommended and 4wdOnly) added to tracktype easier than getting 4wd_only=recommended added to the list. And if we do, then with all those numbers, we may be able to get special rendering, and, importantly special routing rules apply to them.

I just did some (naughty) tests on the main OSM map and find that at present, tracktype is ignored for anything other than highway=track, the tracktype wiki page complains about this too. That would have to change. But it is closer than we are with 4wd_only= tag. Nice thing is the two could exist side by side -
4wd_only=yes
tracktype=grade5

Indeed, seems that at present, all five grades of tracktype are rendered differently. Ranges from grade one as a thin but solid brown line to grade5's small dots.

So, I know this is not what was discussed, but do people want to re think the agreed position ?

David  



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

Re: 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?

Ross Scanlon
You point out the problem with this:

tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track

You would have to modify this in the rendering anyway.

As 4wd_only can apply to any highway= tag it is more appropriate.

 From memory this was part of the original discussion when 4wd_only was
proposed.

Additionally my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used
and Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the
European understanding.

Have a look through the original proposal on the wiki and also the
smoothness discussion


Cheers
Ross


On 28/10/12 11:00, David Bannon wrote:

> Now, I am not suggesting that tracktype is a dropin replacement for
> 4wd_only, far from it, the definition I read says to me it stops before
> 4wd_only (see  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype ) but we
> might find getting a grade 6 and grade 7 (or better still,
> 4wdRecommended and 4wdOnly) added to tracktype easier than getting
> 4wd_only=recommended added to the list. And if we do, then with all
> those numbers, we may be able to get special rendering, and, importantly
> special routing rules apply to them.
>
> Indeed, seems that at present, all five grades of tracktype are rendered
> differently. Ranges from grade one as a thin but solid brown line to
> grade5's small dots.
>
> So, I know this is not what was discussed, but do people want to re
> think the agreed position ?
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Tag - is it the right choice ?

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
 
(Hmm, size limit in postings to list, makes sense...)

Hi Ross, good points, not sure if they are great points however. I think it might be a case of the path of least resistance.

> tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track
Yep, thats the biggie ! However, 4wd_only is not rendered on any OSM maps I am aware of either. You and I know better ...
So, it seems to me that its just as hard to convince the render people about tracktype as 4wd_only. And tracktype has a lot bigger following. I have already been told by one routing engine group that "4wd_only is just an Australian thing".
If we follow the model, suggested by yourself (?) that we mark 4x4 tracks by appending "(4wd only)" to the road name, then that can be applied to any road.
Overall, I suspect its far from agreed that tracktype should apply to only highway=track. If we all put our shoulder to the door.....

> .. my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used
Thats the reason I got excited. tracktype is rendered on the OSM websites slippery map, see http://www.users.on.net/~dbannon/tracktype.png  . Ranges from a single brown line to a line of dots. So that means the rendering engine is aware of the tag. It knows nothing about 4wd_only. So we'd need start from scratch there.

> Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the European understanding.
And I would not have it any other way ! I just saw a note that says, to the effect of "In Germany, we are not allowed to drive on most unmade modes". Sigh.... 
But yes, the current descriptions of tracktype are pretty much "English country gardens", but thats something we can work on.

David


----- Original Message -----
From:
"David Bannon" <[hidden email]>

To:
<[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>, "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:

Sent:
Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:48:28 +1030
Subject:
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?


 

Hi Ross, good points, not sure if they are great points however. I think it might be a case of the path of least resistance.

> tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track
Yep, thats the biggie ! However, 4wd_only is not rendered on any OSM maps I am aware of either. You and I know better ...
So, it seems to me that its just as hard to convince the render people about tracktype as 4wd_only. And tracktype has a lot bigger following. I have already been told by one routing engine group that "4wd_only is just an Australian thing".
If we follow the model, suggested by yourself (?) that we mark 4x4 tracks by appending "(4wd only)" to the road name, then that can be applied to any road.
Overall, I suspect its far from agreed that tracktype should apply to only highway=track. If we all put our shoulder to the door....

> .. my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used
Thats the reason I got excited. tracktype is rendered on the OSM websites slippery map, see attached. Ranges from a single brown line to a line of dots. So that means the rendering engine is aware of the tag. It knows nothing about 4wd_only

> Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the European understanding.
And I would not have it any other way ! I just saw a note that says, to the effect of "In Germany, we are not allowed to drive on most unmade modes". Sigh.... 
But yes, the current descriptions of tracktype are pretty much "English country gardens", but thats something we can work on.

David

----- Original Message -----

To:
<[hidden email]>, "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
Cc:

Sent:
Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:22:55 +1000
Subject:
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ?


You point out the problem with this:

tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track

You would have to modify this in the rendering anyway.

As 4wd_only can apply to any highway= tag it is more appropriate.

From memory this was part of the original discussion when 4wd_only was
proposed.

Additionally my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used
and Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the
European understanding.

Have a look through the original proposal on the wiki and also the
smoothness discussion


Cheers
Ross


On 28/10/12 11:00, David Bannon wrote:
> Now, I am not suggesting that tracktype is a dropin replacement for
> 4wd_only, far from it, the definition I read says to me it stops before
> 4wd_only (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype ) but we
> might find getting a grade 6 and grade 7 (or better still,
> 4wdRecommended and 4wdOnly) added to tracktype easier than getting
> 4wd_only=recommended added to the list. And if we do, then with all
> those numbers, we may be able to get special rendering, and, importantly
> special routing rules apply to them.
>
> Indeed, seems that at present, all five grades of tracktype are rendered
> differently. Ranges from grade one as a thin but solid brown line to
> grade5's small dots.
>
> So, I know this is not what was discussed, but do people want to re
> think the agreed position ?
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the
European understanding.

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