dirt roads - a summary

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

dirt roads - a summary

David Bannon-2
Hi Folks, a summary of discussion on dirt roads before I hack at the discussion tab of Australian_Road_Tagging. Seems to me two issues not completely clear -

1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight, we need to use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats what 4x4_only tag is for. Whats the feeling here folks ?

2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked 4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's appropriate. Particularly in places where there may be some assumption that the tracks are often pretty tough. I am not completely convinced, see two problems, it does, to some extent, change the idea that default is 'no'. Secondly, importantly, tracks change over time and people opinions on what is and is not a 4x4 track vary. Saying "you will be OK in a conventional car" is a lot stronger statement than "you might/will need a 4x4". Comments please ?

At present, mainstream rendering  emphasizes the purpose of a road. Trouble is that (possibly uninformed) people look at the maps and assume a thick prominent line means a well maintained, probably sealed road.

I think there is some agreement that a means of showing the "4x4-ness" of a track on the mainstream (ie mapnik) maps is desirable and possibly a safety issue. The best way to show this might be to append "4x4" to the name of tracks where 4x4_only is set to yes or recommended (Matt). 

Similarly, showing sealed/unsealed may also be a good idea.

I note that if you look at the slippery map on osm.org, click Map Key at a zoomed in level there is a key for "unsealed road", a thick grey dashed line. I spent an hour looking for an example of that on Australian and overseas maps but found none. But thats what we want ?  

If we are to have even the slightest chance of getting changes in this space, it will be because we all agree and play the safety card !

I will clarify lanes=1 where two cars cannot pass at 'normal' speed (Paul, John). And no lanes= tag for default situation.

I will also suggest that survey is probably required for tracks, sat or aerial sources risk missing things like water crossing or gates that completely change the nature of the whole road. A safety issue again.

David



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

Re: dirt roads - a summary

Ian Sergeant-2
On 23 October 2012 11:09, David Bannon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2. Ian likes the idea that tracks or unsealed roads can be marked
> 4x4_only=no if someone has done a survey and decided that's appropriate.
> Particularly in places where there may be some assumption that the tracks
> are often pretty tough. I am not completely convinced
> ...

This is OSM.  A missing tag can mean that someone has considered it
and decided the default value is appropriate, or it can mean that no
one has cast their mind to it.

Where there is a possibility of confusion, or something out of the
ordinary, then I tag and leave notes for future mappers, so they can
improve on it.  I think this is Good Mapping, and at worst Does No
Harm.  If you think it is too, then do the same.  If you don't, then
don't, it isn't compulsory.   Just don't remove tags others consider
useful (unless, of course, they are factually wrong).

Ian.

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

Re: dirt roads - a summary

Mark Pulley-2
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
On 23/10/2012, at 11:09 AM, David Bannon wrote:

1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I don't really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight, we need to use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats what 4x4_only tag is for. Whats the feeling here folks ?

Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not be implied by highway=track.


Mark P.



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

Re: dirt roads - a summary

John Henderson-7
On 23/10/12 15:42, Mark Pulley wrote:
 >
 > Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely
 > drivable with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS
 > trace from my 2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not
 > be implied by highway=track.

Seconded, from similar experience.  I hasten to add that wet weather
might make ANY unpaved road impassable in places, but tracks likely more so.

Any experienced driver will understand that.  We can't begin to think
that we can keep everyone out of trouble by adding a few tags to OSM.

John

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