[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Explicit 4WD_Only tag

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Explicit 4WD_Only tag

Matt White-2
Introduce a tag that allows ways to indicate explicitly whether a 4WD
vehicle is required to navigate that way. This would also allow routing
engines to take into account such ways, so that non-4WD vehicles aren't
routed onto roads they aren't capable of.

Please see the proposal page for the details

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only

Matt

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Explicit 4WD_Only tag

Liz
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Matt White wrote:

> Introduce a tag that allows ways to indicate explicitly whether a 4WD
> vehicle is required to navigate that way. This would also allow routing
> engines to take into account such ways, so that non-4WD vehicles aren't
> routed onto roads they aren't capable of.
>
> Please see the proposal page for the details
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only
>
> Matt
>
We could have a long discussion about this. It's a good idea, but to be
pedantic (and there are lots of mappers like this) do you mean..
a high clearance vehicle
a vehicle which drives through all wheels (4 or 6)
or you can drive this in a solid car with a floor pan if you are smart enough
(like a beach buggy)

some of us rural people reckon that 4WD just gets you 4 foot further into
trouble and just because you have one of those urban shopping cart 4WD things
doesn't make you good enough to go anywhere

and no, I haven't had a 4WD for over 20 years. Nowadays I have a fleet of
bicycles to cover varying terrain.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Explicit 4WD_Only tag

Liz
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Liz wrote:
> and no, I haven't had a 4WD for over 20 years. Nowadays I have a fleet of
> bicycles to cover varying terrain.

I've had a look at the pages and the smoothness page with photos.
Just because the road is rutted doesn't equal high clearance - it requires
slow driving because you will be not be driving in the ruts.
I've split sumps before and don't intend to again but those people who put up
those photos and claimed you needed a high clearance vehicle need driving
lessons.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Explicit 4WD_Only tag

Matt White-2
In reply to this post by Liz
Liz wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Matt White wrote:
>  
>> Introduce a tag that allows ways to indicate explicitly whether a 4WD
>> vehicle is required to navigate that way. This would also allow routing
>> engines to take into account such ways, so that non-4WD vehicles aren't
>> routed onto roads they aren't capable of.
>>
>> Please see the proposal page for the details
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>    
> We could have a long discussion about this. It's a good idea, but to be
> pedantic (and there are lots of mappers like this) do you mean..
> a high clearance vehicle
> a vehicle which drives through all wheels (4 or 6)
> or you can drive this in a solid car with a floor pan if you are smart enough
> (like a beach buggy)
>
> some of us rural people reckon that 4WD just gets you 4 foot further into
> trouble and just because you have one of those urban shopping cart 4WD things
> doesn't make you good enough to go anywhere
>
> and no, I haven't had a 4WD for over 20 years. Nowadays I have a fleet of
> bicycles to cover varying terrain.
>  
I wasn't thinking about urban shopping carts (although I did try and
define 4WD as high clearance vehicle with low range capability, and I
had to include soft roaders (anything with a centre diff lock
capability). Someone on the page asked bout the Lamboghini Murcielago
(cos it's all wheel drive). Can't please everybody.)

Pedantry seems to be prevalent is some sections of OSM - witness the
barney over the smoothness tag (which was kind of what got me to
actually propose a 4WD tag)

The idea was to have a single yes/no tag which was effectively a
practical restriction on the road, rather than a legal one. There are a
number of roads in various state forests around melbourne which are
marked as "4WD Only", and the corresponding VicMap road is also marked
4WD only.

Do you mean 4 feet further, or 4 feet deeper in the mud? Saw some guys
today in Toolangi State Forest who would have been up the proverbial
without a paddle if it wasn't for a decent winch.

Matt

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Explicit 4WD_Only tag

Liz
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Matt White wrote:
> The idea was to have a single yes/no tag which was effectively a
> practical restriction on the road, rather than a legal one. There are a
> number of roads in various state forests around melbourne which are
> marked as "4WD Only", and the corresponding VicMap road is also marked
> 4WD only.
>
> Do you mean 4 feet further, or 4 feet deeper in the mud? Saw some guys
> today in Toolangi State Forest who would have been up the proverbial
> without a paddle if it wasn't for a decent winch.

Yes, it's a practical description of a type of road.
I know that what we have needs to make sense and not be easily confused
between languages and cultures, but because we live on an island continent we
should be able to set some standards which suit us rather than Europe.

On smoothness I was wondering whether to rate "smoothness" before or after the
grader went through. It's too variable here to be of any use in the real
world.

We also need
something to describe "impassable when wet" or "dry weather only"
and a descriptor for a creek or other waterway which isn't always there
eg "ephemeral"

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Explicit 4WD_Only tag

Matt White-12
Liz wrote:
> On smoothness I was wondering whether to rate "smoothness" before or after the
> grader went through. It's too variable here to be of any use in the real
> world.
>
>  
Too true. The road I was on today was pretty good for the most part
(easy 2WD), but there was a section that either hadn't been maintained,
or the recent rain had muddied it up and other 4WD's had been through in
the mud digging the road up, and the whole road was pretty rough with
some deep potholes and (for want of a better phrase) "up and down bits"
which would need reasonable approach and ramp over clearances.
> We also need
> something to describe "impassable when wet" or "dry weather only"
> and a descriptor for a creek or other waterway which isn't always there
> eg "ephemeral"
>  
Again, I agree. Seasonal closure gates, dry weather only (or the reverse
"impassable when wet") would be good.  The dry/wet tag probably needs to
appear next to the road name as well, as it's fairly critical
information when driving around, and the smoothness tag doesn't really
cut it. I think there is a seasonal tag that can be used though - recall
seeing that when I was looking around the OSM wiki

Matt


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