Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
67 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Fernando Trebien
Hello everyone,

I've been interested in proposing a change to Carto's style (Mapnik's main style) to allow visual identification of unpaved roads for any kind of road, much like the Humanitarian style does, which bases this decision on values of the surface tag. The Brazilian community has shown interest on this many times, since lack of this feature causes unaware users to classify roads incorrectly. David Bannon proposes (below) that we use the tracktype tag for that instead, but I've never seen it being used for anything besides roads with highway=track (therefore, not a very common practice it seems). Do you think we should encourage its use in conjunction with unclassified, tertiary, secondary and primary highways?

It seems to me that surface=compacted is quite similar in meaning to tracktype=grade1 (whereas surface=sand, surface=dirt, and others, could be equated with other grades but rarely with grade1, particularly because the "compacted" value exists) and so both tags could be used for the same rendering purpose. Do you agree?

I've seen people from different countries requesting different things on this topic: some would consider even a sett street "unpaved" (therefore, requiring special rendering), but it seems that a "compacted unpaved" road is the limit with which few would disagree. Finding the right universal threshold (if there is only one) is still pretty much debatable, so opinions are appreciated.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: davidbannon <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [openstreetmap-carto] Render paved/unpaved (#110)
To: gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto <[hidden email]>
Cc: ftrebien <[hidden email]>


I am not sure the tag surface= is the right one here. It has a lot of possible values, and a lot of them in use. We'd need a look up table to decide what to do. Better, in my humble opinion to use the tracktype= tag. This tag is intended to show what state the road is likely to be in and thats the information a user really needs. Further, this tag is very widely used.

The Australian Tagging Guidelines on OSM discusses this ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads_.28Dirt.2C_Gravel.2C_Formed.2C_etc.29 ) and believes that any road with tracktype= asserted needs to be shown so people are aware its not a sealed road.

Please remember that highway= type tags should show what a road is is intended for, further information is needed if the surface of that road is not what might be expected ! This is particularly important in places like the Australian Outback where long distances are involved. Many people have died as a result of them underestimating their ability to use a particular road. I don't want to see OSM mentioned in a coroners report.

David


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.




--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Richard Welty-2
On 12/31/13 11:10 AM, Fernando Trebien wrote:

I've been interested in proposing a change to Carto's style (Mapnik's main style) to allow visual identification of unpaved roads for any kind of road, much like the Humanitarian style does, which bases this decision on values of the surface tag. The Brazilian community has shown interest on this many times, since lack of this feature causes unaware users to classify roads incorrectly. David Bannon proposes (below) that we use the tracktype tag for that instead, but I've never seen it being used for anything besides roads with highway=track (therefore, not a very common practice it seems). Do you think we should encourage its use in conjunction with unclassified, tertiary, secondary and primary highways?

i've been known to use tracktype with highways other than tracks, generally in
conjunction with setting surface=(gravel,dirt, etc.) there are rural parts of
the US where such classification seems appropriate to me. i'm not sure if it's
still true, but back in the 70s Vermont had state highways surfaced with
gravel.

tracktype works well for this; if it's not common usage now, maybe the
wiki should be tweaked to suggest such usage.
It seems to me that surface=compacted is quite similar in meaning to tracktype=grade1 (whereas surface=sand, surface=dirt, and others, could be equated with other grades but rarely with grade1, particularly because the "compacted" value exists) and so both tags could be used for the same rendering purpose. Do you agree?

i frequently use

highway=unclassified
tracktype=grade1
surface=gravel

in cases where the road is well maintained and able to support traffic.
many, many farm roads in the midwestern US meet this description;
they don't particularly need to be paved, but they do need to support
heavy farm equipment moving from field to field.

richard


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (965 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

voschix
Two notes:
1) I see tracktype used in Italy on highways other than track and have don so myself. Happens for roads that are classified form their traffic importance different from track, but which are physically similar to track and threfore can be classified by tracktype
2) In Germany, Austria, northern Italy, many tracks (agriculture/forestry roads) are tarmacked and usually tagged tracktype=grade1; surface=asphalt



On 31 December 2013 17:45, Richard Welty <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 12/31/13 11:10 AM, Fernando Trebien wrote:

I've been interested in proposing a change to Carto's style (Mapnik's main style) to allow visual identification of unpaved roads for any kind of road, much like the Humanitarian style does, which bases this decision on values of the surface tag. The Brazilian community has shown interest on this many times, since lack of this feature causes unaware users to classify roads incorrectly. David Bannon proposes (below) that we use the tracktype tag for that instead, but I've never seen it being used for anything besides roads with highway=track (therefore, not a very common practice it seems). Do you think we should encourage its use in conjunction with unclassified, tertiary, secondary and primary highways?

i've been known to use tracktype with highways other than tracks, generally in
conjunction with setting surface=(gravel,dirt, etc.) there are rural parts of
the US where such classification seems appropriate to me. i'm not sure if it's
still true, but back in the 70s Vermont had state highways surfaced with
gravel.

tracktype works well for this; if it's not common usage now, maybe the
wiki should be tweaked to suggest such usage.

It seems to me that surface=compacted is quite similar in meaning to tracktype=grade1 (whereas surface=sand, surface=dirt, and others, could be equated with other grades but rarely with grade1, particularly because the "compacted" value exists) and so both tags could be used for the same rendering purpose. Do you agree?

i frequently use

highway=unclassified
tracktype=grade1
surface=gravel

in cases where the road is well maintained and able to support traffic.
many, many farm roads in the midwestern US meet this description;
they don't particularly need to be paved, but they do need to support
heavy farm equipment moving from field to field.

richard


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

malenki
In reply to this post by Fernando Trebien
Am Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:10:33 -0200
schrieb Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]>:

> [rendering unpaved roads]
> The Brazilian community has shown interest on this many times,
> since lack of this feature causes unaware users to classify roads
> incorrectly.

There are a lot of countries which would have an advantage of such a
style.

> David Bannon proposes (below) that we use the tracktype
> tag for that instead, but I've never seen it being used for anything
> besides roads with highway=track (therefore, not a very common
> practice it seems).

Some examples have been mentioned in the other replies; I would like to
add the
* Baltic States (which have big woods with tiny settlements
  sprinkled in them being connected with unpaved roads)
* Poland with some regions alike the above mentioned
* Albania which is still struggling to pave its major roads, not to
  mention the minor ones. An example is the SH4¹ which was unpaved in
  big parts back in 2011 but well travelled. It is a primary highway
  with tendency to motorway
* Australia is already mentioned in the mail you forward and I assume
  that in
* Africa a lot of roads are similar

> Do you think we should encourage its use in
> conjunction with unclassified, tertiary, secondary and primary
> highways?

yes

> It seems to me that surface=compacted is quite similar in meaning to
> tracktype=grade1 (whereas surface=sand, surface=dirt, and others,
> could be equated with other grades but rarely with grade1,
> particularly because the "compacted" value exists) and so both tags
> could be used for the same rendering purpose. Do you agree?

I wouldn't connect surface=compacted and tracktype=grade1 per default
since compacted roads and and roads with really paved surface (asphalt
or cobblestones) are not unlikely to show a very different driving
experience after some good rain.
Of course this also depends on your definition of "compacted". :)

For rendering a map displaying highway quality beside their
classification I'd consider useful not only the tags
* surface and
* tracktype
but also
* 4wd_only (maybe mentioned at the Australian Tagging Guidelines)
* ford=
and some thoughts on roads in dry riverbeds. So far I mapped them with
ford=yes. Iirc there have been discussions about this topic but at
the moment I don't have time to research them.
Once I also used ride_height=[value] because one road I walked would
have required a car with about 40 cm ground clearance to pass it.

looking forward to that enhanced rendering style,
Thomas

¹ http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_22/slide_34.html
( contains exif tags with valid geotagging)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Matthijs Melissen
On 31 December 2013 21:27, malenki <[hidden email]> wrote:
> looking forward to that enhanced rendering style,

What would be the most suitable rendering? Perhaps similar to the
normal rendering, but with a dashed outline (casing)?

-- Matthijs

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Fernando Trebien
I was thinking of a colour change (like the Humanitarian style does), but a dashed outline would be just fine for me. After deciding which tags should be used, I think I'd leave the aesthetic decision to people in the "design" list or (perhaps better) to Carto's developers (I don't know who made Carto's style but I've heard a professional cartographer was hired for that).


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Matthijs Melissen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 31 December 2013 21:27, malenki <[hidden email]> wrote:
> looking forward to that enhanced rendering style,

What would be the most suitable rendering? Perhaps similar to the
normal rendering, but with a dashed outline (casing)?

-- Matthijs

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by malenki
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:27 PM, malenki <[hidden email]> wrote:
I wouldn't connect surface=compacted and tracktype=grade1 per default
since compacted roads and and roads with really paved surface (asphalt
or cobblestones) are not unlikely to show a very different driving
experience after some good rain.
Of course this also depends on your definition of "compacted". :)

This is an important point where it gets tricky to reach "global" agreement. As a driver here in Brazil (and having driven abroad only in the US, even though I've been using public transportation in other countries too), my experience tells me that even a sett road has different characteristics after rain. Sett becomes slippery and, thus, less safe (even in sunny conditions it may be less preferable to some people). Any unpaved road (compacted or not, but mostly not compacted ones) will not only make your car dirtier but may increase the chance of bogging and it is perhaps even less safe than wet sett streets. Exactly when these things become relevant as to deserve different rendering is somewhat subjective. My personal perception is that the largest difference appears when going from paved to unpaved (thus, including "compacted" on the "unpaved" side); the Brazilian community seems to disagree and includes "compacted" on the "paved"-like side (mostly because many regions in Brazil have almost solely unpaved roads). One possible solution is voting on various possible thresholds and sticking with a single style change (my current aim, as I think this is the fastest way to get results). In case of too much disagreement, another solution is introducing various different rendering styles for each of these situations (much like Carto's many rendering styles of highway=track according to trackgrade; this could affect only outlines of the ways). Other solutions may fall in between these two.

--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

John F. Eldredge
On 12/31/2013 04:54 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:27 PM, malenki <[hidden email]> wrote:
I wouldn't connect surface=compacted and tracktype=grade1 per default
since compacted roads and and roads with really paved surface (asphalt
or cobblestones) are not unlikely to show a very different driving
experience after some good rain.
Of course this also depends on your definition of "compacted". :)

This is an important point where it gets tricky to reach "global" agreement. As a driver here in Brazil (and having driven abroad only in the US, even though I've been using public transportation in other countries too), my experience tells me that even a sett road has different characteristics after rain. Sett becomes slippery and, thus, less safe (even in sunny conditions it may be less preferable to some people). Any unpaved road (compacted or not, but mostly not compacted ones) will not only make your car dirtier but may increase the chance of bogging and it is perhaps even less safe than wet sett streets. Exactly when these things become relevant as to deserve different rendering is somewhat subjective. My personal perception is that the largest difference appears when going from paved to unpaved (thus, including "compacted" on the "unpaved" side); the Brazilian community seems to disagree and includes "compacted" on the "paved"-like side (mostly because many regions in Brazil have almost solely unpaved roads). One possible solution is voting on various possible thresholds and sticking with a single style change (my current aim, as I think this is the fastest way to get results). In case of too much disagreement, another solution is introducing various different rendering styles for each of these situations (much like Carto's many rendering styles of highway=track according to trackgrade; this could affect only outlines of the ways). Other solutions may fall in between these two.

Even with a compacted dirt road, how usable it is after a rain can vary according to the soil type, the terrain, and how long it has been raining.  My experience on clay soil suggests that, if the water can drain off quickly, the road will be slippery but not too soft.  If the water is able to pool and soak in, you can end up with a morass that won't be passable until much later.
-- 
John F. Eldredge -- [hidden email]
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

john.vcf (178 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Richard Welty-2
In reply to this post by Fernando Trebien
On 12/31/13 5:54 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:27 PM, malenki <[hidden email]> wrote:
I wouldn't connect surface=compacted and tracktype=grade1 per default
since compacted roads and and roads with really paved surface (asphalt
or cobblestones) are not unlikely to show a very different driving
experience after some good rain.
Of course this also depends on your definition of "compacted". :)

This is an important point where it gets tricky to reach "global" agreement.
properly, we should be talking about a consistent tagging scheme that
accurately describes the road surface. the rendering isn't the business of
the tagging group. we just need to produce tagging that is clear,
consistent, and reasonably complete. it seems to me that a simple edit
to the wiki extending tracktype=grade? across road classifications
other than track accomplishes most of what we want here, along with
encouraging use of the surface tag in an appropriate manner.
attempting to somehow relate surface= to specific tracktypes seems
like a bad deal to me; i've seen gravel roads that were grade1, and
gravel roads that were way, way worse than grade1.

there are reasons why there may need to be custom rendering stylesheets
for different parts of the world. it may be as simple as local taste, but there
can be other issues - the new highway shield rendering for the US is really
nice, but may not make it into the main Carto style sheet, so there's a
chance the highway shields will get rolled out in an openstreetmap.us style.

richard


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (965 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Matthijs Melissen
In reply to this post by Fernando Trebien
On 31 December 2013 22:27, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was thinking of a colour change (like the Humanitarian style does), but a
> dashed outline would be just fine for me. After deciding which tags should
> be used, I think I'd leave the aesthetic decision to people in the "design"
> list or (perhaps better) to Carto's developers (I don't know who made
> Carto's style but I've heard a professional cartographer was hired for
> that).

The Carto style is maintained by Andy Allan aka gravitystorm:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto. The Carto design
is basically a direct copy of the older Mapnik XML design, of which I
don't know who wrote it. Apart from Andy, many people, including me,
have contributed to the Carto style. I have worked on the rendering of
roads, so if you like, I can help you in writing up the change. Just
keep in mind I don't know anything about cartography or design either,
I'm just good at typing out other peoples' ideas in a machine-readable
form :).

-- Matthijs

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

malenki
In reply to this post by Matthijs Melissen
Am Tue, 31 Dec 2013 22:15:10 +0000
schrieb Matthijs Melissen <[hidden email]>:

> On 31 December 2013 21:27, malenki <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > looking forward to that enhanced rendering style,
>
> What would be the most suitable rendering? Perhaps similar to the
> normal rendering, but with a dashed outline (casing)?

As I had vague thoughts about probably maybe setting up an own "bad
road map" I thought of the default OSM style plus different sized
grain on the colored part of the road (if this description is too
unclear I can make a sketch-up after I had some sleep) plus a red line
at the side for 4wd_only=yes and a blue line for highways in riverbeds.

But like some other people I am no cartographer. My biggest part

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

malenki
In reply to this post by Matthijs Melissen
Am Tue, 31 Dec 2013 22:15:10 +0000
schrieb Matthijs Melissen <[hidden email]>:

[... (darn fat fingers and crazy working hours)]
My biggest contribution to OSM is adding and checking data

gn8
Thomas

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Matthijs Melissen
Great! I'll surely count on your expertise, Matthijs. I think the guys at the design list can help us arrive at a good visual style for this. We can start with our 2 cents (malenki's suggestions seem like a great starting point).

I agree with Richard, here on the tagging list we should not be concerned with rendering specifics. However, for me it's been great in understanding which factors seem more important to most people across different cultures, in order to establish the major difference at the right spot. A rendering decision requires an insight in tag semantics, and in this case also involves a tagging culture change (promoting a specific tag) that may even spread all the way down to editors such as JOSM and iD.

If nobody disagrees, I'll consider that the tracktype tag is the best choice for this decision, and that any value besides grade1 deserves some marking meaning it's not in what most people consider "good condition".

I believe an effective way to get people to use tracktype that way is, beyond a wiki update, also an update on JOSM's presets (in this case, simply adding a tracktype field in several presets). Experient mappers (most of those using JOSM) will quickly get the message and then pass it along to new users.


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Matthijs Melissen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 31 December 2013 22:27, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was thinking of a colour change (like the Humanitarian style does), but a
> dashed outline would be just fine for me. After deciding which tags should
> be used, I think I'd leave the aesthetic decision to people in the "design"
> list or (perhaps better) to Carto's developers (I don't know who made
> Carto's style but I've heard a professional cartographer was hired for
> that).

The Carto style is maintained by Andy Allan aka gravitystorm:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto. The Carto design
is basically a direct copy of the older Mapnik XML design, of which I
don't know who wrote it. Apart from Andy, many people, including me,
have contributed to the Carto style. I have worked on the rendering of
roads, so if you like, I can help you in writing up the change. Just
keep in mind I don't know anything about cartography or design either,
I'm just good at typing out other peoples' ideas in a machine-readable
form :).

-- Matthijs

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Fernando Trebien
Ah, happy new years everyone! :D


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:
Great! I'll surely count on your expertise, Matthijs. I think the guys at the design list can help us arrive at a good visual style for this. We can start with our 2 cents (malenki's suggestions seem like a great starting point).

I agree with Richard, here on the tagging list we should not be concerned with rendering specifics. However, for me it's been great in understanding which factors seem more important to most people across different cultures, in order to establish the major difference at the right spot. A rendering decision requires an insight in tag semantics, and in this case also involves a tagging culture change (promoting a specific tag) that may even spread all the way down to editors such as JOSM and iD.

If nobody disagrees, I'll consider that the tracktype tag is the best choice for this decision, and that any value besides grade1 deserves some marking meaning it's not in what most people consider "good condition".

I believe an effective way to get people to use tracktype that way is, beyond a wiki update, also an update on JOSM's presets (in this case, simply adding a tracktype field in several presets). Experient mappers (most of those using JOSM) will quickly get the message and then pass it along to new users.


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Matthijs Melissen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 31 December 2013 22:27, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was thinking of a colour change (like the Humanitarian style does), but a
> dashed outline would be just fine for me. After deciding which tags should
> be used, I think I'd leave the aesthetic decision to people in the "design"
> list or (perhaps better) to Carto's developers (I don't know who made
> Carto's style but I've heard a professional cartographer was hired for
> that).

The Carto style is maintained by Andy Allan aka gravitystorm:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto. The Carto design
is basically a direct copy of the older Mapnik XML design, of which I
don't know who wrote it. Apart from Andy, many people, including me,
have contributed to the Carto style. I have worked on the rendering of
roads, so if you like, I can help you in writing up the change. Just
keep in mind I don't know anything about cartography or design either,
I'm just good at typing out other peoples' ideas in a machine-readable
form :).

-- Matthijs

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Fernando Trebien
<a href="tel:%2B55%20%2851%29%209962-5409" value="+555199625409" target="_blank">+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)



--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Matthijs Melissen
In reply to this post by Fernando Trebien
On 1 January 2014 13:35, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If nobody disagrees, I'll consider that the tracktype tag is the best choice
> for this decision, and that any value besides grade1 deserves some marking
> meaning it's not in what most people consider "good condition".

Personally, I'm not a fan of using tracktype for this purpose. I don't
like tracktype in general, because the semantics is impossible to
guess without referring to the documentation, and hard to remember.
The numbers also don't have a precise semantics, apart from the
description on the wiki.

Of course, we could use a combination of both approaches, i.e., render
both tracktype 2-5 and surface=unpaved/ground/etc as unpaved roads.

How do commercial maps render unpaved tracks in Brazil (or elsewhere)?
In the Netherlands, dashed outlines are used, hence why that would be
most intuitive to me, but I can imagine different systems are used
across the globe.

There is also a discussion on Carto's Github on this topic:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110

-- Matthijs

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Fernando Trebien
A combined approach makes sense to me. Then people can choose if they want to use the tracktype tag or continue using just the surface tag (either may make sense in different communities; I'd guess the German community will prefer to use tracktype only with highway=track). I think the following values of the surface tag could be considered paved: [none] (no surface tag present), paved, asphalt, concrete, concrete:lanes, concrete:plates, paving_stones, sett, grass_paver, cobblestone, metal, wood, tartan. All other values, including new and undocumented values, could be unpaved by default. How about this? Moreover, TagInfo (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=surface) lists a few other undocumented values that may be considered paved, such as cobblestone:flattened (same as sett? to be discouraged?), bricks and interlock (both similar to paving_stones?), cement (quite similar to concrete?), stone and rocky and rock and limerock and granite (similar in practice to sett or cobblestone?).

I also agree with using a dashed line (same visual language of Carto's tracks) instead of grains, which may be harder to see (say, against the somewhat darker red background of a primary way). But I also like malenski's idea of red and blue outlines for the other situations he has pointed out, both seem quite intuitive to me. Anyway, I'd bring this part of the discussion (visual aesthetics) out of the tagging list. Only answering your question, Google renders unpaved roads as fainter and thinner streets (http://goo.gl/maps/9ErFf), but only at distant zoom levels. Bing.com renders them fainter and golden, but only at distant zoom levels (http://binged.it/1cY5c01). Here.com renders them slightly fainter and grayer at any zoom level (http://here.com/-29.9938308,-51.1125391,14,0,0,normal.day). These examples may, however, simply reflect a different "classification" that these companies adopt - maybe they have decided to map these streets as something similar to living streets. Navigon (the satnav program I used before switching to OSM-based apps) makes no visual distinction. I'll ask the Brazilian community if they have more examples with other GPS software. Nonetheless, I believe a more distinctive marking such as dashed lines would be preferred by most people.


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Matthijs Melissen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:35, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If nobody disagrees, I'll consider that the tracktype tag is the best choice
> for this decision, and that any value besides grade1 deserves some marking
> meaning it's not in what most people consider "good condition".

Personally, I'm not a fan of using tracktype for this purpose. I don't
like tracktype in general, because the semantics is impossible to
guess without referring to the documentation, and hard to remember.
The numbers also don't have a precise semantics, apart from the
description on the wiki.

Of course, we could use a combination of both approaches, i.e., render
both tracktype 2-5 and surface=unpaved/ground/etc as unpaved roads.

How do commercial maps render unpaved tracks in Brazil (or elsewhere)?
In the Netherlands, dashed outlines are used, hence why that would be
most intuitive to me, but I can imagine different systems are used
across the globe.

There is also a discussion on Carto's Github on this topic:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110

-- Matthijs

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Peter Wendorff
Am 01.01.2014 17:28, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
> A combined approach makes sense to me. Then people can choose if they want
> to use the tracktype tag or continue using just the surface tag (either may
> make sense in different communities; I'd guess the German community will
> prefer to use tracktype only with highway=track). I think the following
> values of the surface tag could be considered paved: [none] (no surface tag
> present), paved, asphalt, concrete, concrete:lanes, concrete:plates,
> paving_stones, sett, grass_paver, cobblestone, metal, wood, tartan.
I only partly agree on none for your wording to "be considered paved".
If you mean "rendered as paved", I agree, but no information is no
information here, and what's the default heavily depends on where you are.
In many parts of Africa "none" should be considered unpaved by default,
in many parts of Western Europe for highway=residential and above it
would be paved.
Therefore there should NOT be a rendered default assumption in the
Mapnik Rendering where there is nothing.
Leave it as it is no (undecorated) where no value is given.

> All
> other values, including new and undocumented values, could be unpaved by
> default.
Why should all other values be unpaved, if you don't know about what it
is? You simply don't know if a new value could be counted as paved or
not without investigating that exact value.
I could imagine new values for both, and if you propose rendering stuff
with an assumption that is decided to be wrong for some values, this
will lead to mappers not using correct tags or even tagging wrong to
prevent "the map" to show what they would call wrong.

> How about this? Moreover, TagInfo (
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=surface) lists a few other
> undocumented values that may be considered paved, such as
> cobblestone:flattened (same as sett? to be discouraged?), bricks and
> interlock (both similar to paving_stones?), cement (quite similar to
> concrete?), stone and rocky and rock and limerock and granite (similar in
> practice to sett or cobblestone?).
You see: There's quite a lot, so don't use defaults here when applying
rules to the default map rendering.
The Mapnik Map IMHO should show what's in OSM, not what one could
estimate out of it.

regards
Peter


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Fernando Trebien
I meant "rendered as paved" in these situations indeed.

I believe you may prefer 3 different renderings: one for the absence
of the surface tag (same as the current default style), one for
paved-like surfaces (perhaps some darker solid outline - but we need
to distinguish that from bridges and viaducts), and then yet another
one for unpaved-like surfaces.

It seems quite subjective whether we should adopt 3 different styles,
or only 2, and which to choose as the default style (paved or
unpaved). Let me try to throw in some thoughts.

Perhaps statistics can help. How many highways do we have in OSM
today? 69,750,051. How many have a surface tag? 11% of them (7,383,161
ways). When used, how often does the surface tag contain a "paved" or
an "unpaved" value (for the interests of rendering)? Considering the
top 50 values (which amount to over 99.5% of all uses of the tag), we
have 56% on the paved side and 46% on the unpaved side (see my
listings at the end). Among these, we have 18 paved surface types, 26
unpaved types and 6 unknown types. The top 95% most common paved
surface types are asphalt, paved, concrete and paving_stones (only 4
values), and the top 99% includes cobblestone and wood (6 values so
far). The top 95% most common unpaved surface types are unpaved,
gravel, ground, dirt, grass and sand (6 values), and the top 99%
includes compacted, pebblestone and fine_gravel (a total of 9 values).

In favour of adopting 3 different renderings (or no specific
rendering) is the fact that the vast majority of roads lack the
surface tag. (Note: even less of them, only 4%, include the tracktype
tag.)

In favour of unpaved as default, one could argue that mappers seem
more concerned with specifying a surface when the surface is paved.
This could result from OSM communities being more active in paved
areas. You could also say that pavement correlates with economic
development, as does participation in OSM, so choosing the unpaved
style as default would be more often correct in places that more
likely lack this tag.

However, I imagine that paved as default would please most active
communities. They wouldn't feel a push towards completing that
information where it would seem "redundant" (because everything around
them is paved almost by default).

Ethically, I think unpaved as default would be best. It would put
strain on the side that has the mapping workforce to handle it (Brazil
included).

The fact that there's greater diversity of unpaved surface types could
favour both a choice towards easier maintenance (defining what's paved
and considering everything else, including new values, as unpaved) or
against diversification (defining what's unpaved and considering
everything else as paved would discourage the creation of new values
on the side that already has most values). Maybe diversification is
desirable, even though it's not always best for applications.

---

Listing 1: way count of paved ways

2193896 asphalt
1479671 paved
195633 concrete
174309 paving_stones
111608 cobblestone
22176 wood
3623 concrete:plates
3609 grass_paver
3171 paving_stones:30
2731 metal
2342 concrete:lanes
1871 bricks
1685 sett
1664 tartan
1605 cobblestone:flattened
1605 interlock
1389 cement
295 tarmac
4202883 TOTAL

Listing 2: way count of unpaved ways

1388766 unpaved
632416 gravel
504667 ground
280709 dirt
242492 grass
100910 sand
84121 compacted
20050 pebblestone
10129 fine_gravel
6396 earth
4249 mud
2869 dirt/sand
1965 clay
1126 grass;earth
1083 ground;grass
885 artificial_turf
669 gravel;ground
554 grass;ground
456 pebbles
365 grass;sand
353 trail
330 gravel;grass
316 no␣data
303 hard
274 ash
270 soil
3286723 TOTAL

Listing 3: way count of unknown surface type ways

1517 stone
1067 rocky
918 rock
611 limerock
286 unspecified
282 laterite
4681 TOTAL

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Peter Wendorff
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 01.01.2014 17:28, schrieb Fernando Trebien:
>> A combined approach makes sense to me. Then people can choose if they want
>> to use the tracktype tag or continue using just the surface tag (either may
>> make sense in different communities; I'd guess the German community will
>> prefer to use tracktype only with highway=track). I think the following
>> values of the surface tag could be considered paved: [none] (no surface tag
>> present), paved, asphalt, concrete, concrete:lanes, concrete:plates,
>> paving_stones, sett, grass_paver, cobblestone, metal, wood, tartan.
> I only partly agree on none for your wording to "be considered paved".
> If you mean "rendered as paved", I agree, but no information is no
> information here, and what's the default heavily depends on where you are.
> In many parts of Africa "none" should be considered unpaved by default,
> in many parts of Western Europe for highway=residential and above it
> would be paved.
> Therefore there should NOT be a rendered default assumption in the
> Mapnik Rendering where there is nothing.
> Leave it as it is no (undecorated) where no value is given.
>
>> All
>> other values, including new and undocumented values, could be unpaved by
>> default.
> Why should all other values be unpaved, if you don't know about what it
> is? You simply don't know if a new value could be counted as paved or
> not without investigating that exact value.
> I could imagine new values for both, and if you propose rendering stuff
> with an assumption that is decided to be wrong for some values, this
> will lead to mappers not using correct tags or even tagging wrong to
> prevent "the map" to show what they would call wrong.
>
>> How about this? Moreover, TagInfo (
>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=surface) lists a few other
>> undocumented values that may be considered paved, such as
>> cobblestone:flattened (same as sett? to be discouraged?), bricks and
>> interlock (both similar to paving_stones?), cement (quite similar to
>> concrete?), stone and rocky and rock and limerock and granite (similar in
>> practice to sett or cobblestone?).
> You see: There's quite a lot, so don't use defaults here when applying
> rules to the default map rendering.
> The Mapnik Map IMHO should show what's in OSM, not what one could
> estimate out of it.
>
> regards
> Peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Pieren
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Fernando Trebien
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Listing 1: way count of paved ways
:
:
> Listing 2: way count of unpaved ways
:
:

Finally, we just need a "paved" and "unpaved" value for "surface".
This combined with tracktype would be far enough and simple for
everyone.

Pieren

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

Fernando Trebien
Maybe, or maybe not. Routers may adjust routing decisions for each
surface type. Asphalt and sett could be "paved" for rendering, but for
routing there may be a preference towards asphalt roads. Here in
Brazil, taking this into account when computing routes would greatly
improve route quality within cities outside main ways (in secondaries,
tertiaries, etc.). A smarter router could even change this preference
based on weather conditions (under rain, sett gets considerably
slippery, and dirt would be far less preferable than compacted).

[Such a smart router probably doesn't exist yet, but with OSM data, it
can. OSRM has everything to allow such fine tuning.]

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Pieren <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Fernando Trebien
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Listing 1: way count of paved ways
> :
> :
>> Listing 2: way count of unpaved ways
> :
> :
>
> Finally, we just need a "paved" and "unpaved" value for "surface".
> This combined with tracktype would be far enough and simple for
> everyone.
>
> Pieren
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234