dirt roads

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

dirt roads

David Bannon-2

Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span.

So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging  I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues.

So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki.

Unmade roads

These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line.
highway=track
surface=unpaved
lanes=[1; 2]
4x4_only=[recommended; yes]
source=survey

Made but unsealed roads.

Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have "run offs" to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only.
highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary]
surface=unpaved
lanes=[1; 2]
source=survey

Use of the highway tag on dirt roads.

While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would understand that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between Tertiary  roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to dirt roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented as viable routes for people passing through the area. Some care needs be exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as 'secondary'.


Discussion

Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its purpose. A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is probably a track from a road condition perspective, rarely maintained, sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a 'track' it would not show up on a map until you zoom in way past where you can get any idea of where it starts and ends. At time of writing, its highway=primary (and, I might note, incomplete), that's possibly dangerously misleading. Conventional vehicles routinely use it but I'd probably give it a 4x4_only=recommended tag. However, none of the mainstream rendering engines observe that tag, it is no real protection for a visiting tourist.

Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. Thats probably quite correct from a purpose view but a lot of (especially city based) drivers get quite nervous when they find themselves on a dirt road. If they have got there by following a OSM map showing a road with coloured fill, maybe they have a case ? Most printed maps here in Australia show unsealed roads without a coloured fill. 

And this does, of course, highlight the need to survey roads.

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

Matt White-12
A couple of quick comments:

There is a 4wd tag already in use -  4wd_only:yes|recommended (with no being a pointless value) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes  There's about 1000 instances of this tag in use in Australia.

There was a proposal kicking around ages ago that was trying to define some improved classification for unpaved roads (as unpaved roads come in all sorts of varieties). I think the discussion got pretty acrimonious and petty, but the thought was there. There are roads I've been on where the surface would be OK for a normal car, but the road is a series of sharp humps that would easily ground a standard clearance vehicle.

Seasonal closure is another area where I don't think the tagging is complete/useful. The current tag is dry_weather_only=yes or access=dry_weather_only, which is valid for any road that is impassable in the wet due to surface condition or creek/river crossings, but there are also tracks with explicit closures (usually mid may to the first weekend in September or October) - generally marked as 'SSC' in the VicMap series of maps. Don't have a solution, but it something that might need working on as there are a lot of SSC roads in Victoria and NSW

Anyway, I'm all for improved tagging of dirt roads - it's my favourite kind of mapping (usually cos it turns out to involve a couple of days of camping and getting out into the bush

Matt

On 21/10/2012 12:03 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span.

So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging  I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues.

So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki.

Unmade roads

These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line.
highway=track
surface=unpaved
lanes=[1; 2]
4x4_only=[recommended; yes]
source=survey

Made but unsealed roads.

Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have "run offs" to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only.
highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary]
surface=unpaved
lanes=[1; 2]
source=survey

Use of the highway tag on dirt roads.

While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would understand that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between Tertiary  roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to dirt roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented as viable routes for people passing through the area. Some care needs be exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as 'secondary'.


Discussion

Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its purpose. A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is probably a track from a road condition perspective, rarely maintained, sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a 'track' it would not show up on a map until you zoom in way past where you can get any idea of where it starts and ends. At time of writing, its highway=primary (and, I might note, incomplete), that's possibly dangerously misleading. Conventional vehicles routinely use it but I'd probably give it a 4x4_only=recommended tag. However, none of the mainstream rendering engines observe that tag, it is no real protection for a visiting tourist.

Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. Thats probably quite correct from a purpose view but a lot of (especially city based) drivers get quite nervous when they find themselves on a dirt road. If they have got there by following a OSM map showing a road with coloured fill, maybe they have a case ? Most printed maps here in Australia show unsealed roads without a coloured fill. 

And this does, of course, highlight the need to survey roads.

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: dirt roads

John Henderson-7
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
On 21/10/12 12:03, [hidden email] wrote:

> lanes=[1; 2]

I thing the "lanes" tag is best not used, unless there's more than two
marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road.

This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes

I have two reasons for arguing this.

Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM
maintenance (and quite unnecessarily).  And it's something else to get
wrong if it's used routinely.  It's easier for everybody if its used is
reserved for the special cases.

Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia
every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs.  If every road in
Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download.

> Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads
> defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'.

I think a lot of roads get "pumped up" to be more important than they
are.  The great majority of country roads should be "unclassified".
It's hard to make a judgement as to when a different tag should apply.
Is it a main connecting road between towns with a Post Office?  How many
cars per hour travel it?

Another example is the tagging of the Hume Highway as a motorway.  Most
of it isn't.  The Hume Freeway in Victoria is, but most of the NSW
section has normal side-road junctions, and is certainly not a motorway.
By tagging it as a motorway, we've destroyed this useful distinction.

John


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

Re: dirt roads

David Bannon-2
OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest too!)

I  use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.

I agree lanes=2 is almost certainly unnecessary. Think the wiki already says so.

So, I suggest, your comment does raise the question of just how narrow a road needs to be before it gets called lanes=1  ?  Most drivers on a dirt road with good visibility tend to sit close to the middle and drift off to the left when some one approaches. Thats one end of the scale. At the other, you are continuously (and nervously) looking for somewhere to pull in case there is oncoming traffic. (anyone been down Bull Track in the high country ?)  I tend to think that somewhere in the middle (so to speak) is right, if you expect to need to slow down substantially to allow another car to pass, that is lanes=1.

Sadly there is quite a lot of roads that fit that description.

Agree with your other comments, especially about the Hume !

David


----- Original Message -----
From:
"John Henderson" <[hidden email]>

To:
<[hidden email]>
Cc:

Sent:
Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:11:07 +1100
Subject:
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads


On 21/10/12 12:03, [hidden email] wrote:

> lanes=[1; 2]

I thing the "lanes" tag is best not used, unless there's more than two
marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road.

This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes

I have two reasons for arguing this.

Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM
maintenance (and quite unnecessarily). And it's something else to get
wrong if it's used routinely. It's easier for everybody if its used is
reserved for the special cases.

Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia
every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs. If every road in
Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download.

> Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads
> defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'.

I think a lot of roads get "pumped up" to be more important than they
are. The great majority of country roads should be "unclassified".
It's hard to make a judgement as to when a different tag should apply.
Is it a main connecting road between towns with a Post Office? How many
cars per hour travel it?

Another example is the tagging of the Hume Highway as a motorway. Most
of it isn't. The Hume Freeway in Victoria is, but most of the NSW
section has normal side-road junctions, and is certainly not a motorway.
By tagging it as a motorway, we've destroyed this useful distinction.

John


_______________________________________________
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: dirt roads

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Matt White-12
 
Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones !

I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly, because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map data ends up being looked at.

As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !

David

----- Original Message -----
From:
"Matt White" <[hidden email]>

To:
<[hidden email]>
Cc:

Sent:
Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:33:24 +1100
Subject:
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads


A couple of quick comments:

There is a 4wd tag already in use -  4wd_only:yes|recommended (with no being a pointless value) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes  There's about 1000 instances of this tag in use in Australia.

There was a proposal kicking around ages ago that was trying to define some improved classification for unpaved roads (as unpaved roads come in all sorts of varieties). I think the discussion got pretty acrimonious and petty, but the thought was there. There are roads I've been on where the surface would be OK for a normal car, but the road is a series of sharp humps that would easily ground a standard clearance vehicle.

Seasonal closure is another area where I don't think the tagging is complete/useful The current tag is dry_weather_only=yes or access=dry_weather_only, which is valid for any road that is impassable in the wet due to surface condition or creek/river crossings, but there are also tracks with explicit closures (usually mid may to the first weekend in September or October) - generally marked as 'SSC' in the VicMap series of maps. Don't have a solution, but it something that might need working on as there are a lot of SSC roads in Victoria and NSW

Anyway, I'm all for improved tagging of dirt roads - it's my favourite kind of mapping (usually cos it turns out to involve a couple of days of camping and getting out into the bush

Matt

On 21/10/2012 12:03 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span.

So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging  I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues.

So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki.

Unmade roads

These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line.
highway=track
surface=unpaved
lanes=[1; 2]
4x4_only=[recommended; yes]
source=survey

Made but unsealed roads.

Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have "run offs" to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only.
highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary]
surface=unpaved
lanes=[1; 2]
source=survey

Use of the highway tag on dirt roads.

While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would understand that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between Tertiary  roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to dirt roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented as viable routes for people passing through the area. Some care needs be exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as 'secondary'.


Discussion

Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its purpose. A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is probably a track from a road condition perspective, rarely maintained, sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a 'track' it would not show up on a map until you zoom in way past where you can get any idea of where it starts and ends. At time of writing, its highway=primary (and, I might note, incomplete), that's possibly dangerously misleading. Conventional vehicles routinely use it but I'd probably give it a 4x4_only=recommended tag. However, none of the mainstream rendering engines observe that tag, it is no real protection for a visiting tourist.

Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. Thats probably quite correct from a purpose view but a lot of (especially city based) drivers get quite nervous when they find themselves on a dirt road. If they have got there by following a OSM map showing a road with coloured fill, maybe they have a case ? Most printed maps here in Australia show unsealed roads without a coloured fill. 

And this does, of course, highlight the need to survey roads.

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: dirt roads

John Henderson-7
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
On 21/10/12 13:28, [hidden email] wrote:
> OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest
> too!)
>
> I  use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough
> for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both
> need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for
> overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of
> caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.

That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible.
I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short
sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock
face on the other.

Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
"access:caravan=unsuitable"

John


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

Re: dirt roads

Matt White-12
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

>
> Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones !
>
> I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly,
> because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the
> wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map
> data ends up being looked at.
>
> As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
> I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
> to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
> are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>
In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render
the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or
Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC).

The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD only' to
the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have anything.

I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of information
- often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but
perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is navigable in a
2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so once you
are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those
instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important requirement.

Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are
dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the
Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA.

Matt

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

Re: dirt roads

Ian Sergeant-2
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
On 21/10/12 13:35, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
> I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
> to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
> are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !

Personally, I would find a tag

4x4_only=no
source:4x4_only=survey

Would be a great tag on a dirt road.  In means that someone has surveyed
it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.

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

David Bannon-2
 

Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to be updated.

David

----- Original Message -----
From:
"Ian Sergeant" <[hidden email]>


Personally, I would find a tag

4x4_only=no
source:4x4_only=survey

Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has surveyed
it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.


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

Re: dirt roads

Ian Sergeant-2
On 21 October 2012 16:05,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of
> the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default
> is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to
> change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to
> be updated.

Not at all.  It is the correct default situation, of course, that a
4x4 is not required.  However a good survey of roads that are remote
should consider including additional detail on the road surface.

Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no
guarantee that a 4x4 is not required.  4x4_only=no is a useful
observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations).

I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not required
on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the
default, so the tag is useless.  Or worse still, does a selection for
all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis.

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

Nathan Van Der Meulen
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
Hi David

Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within a product).  Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some more detail.  We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due to software restrictions and other difficulties.  But we are certainly trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done.  Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc. 

Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example.  In fact there are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite poor condition.  Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf.

Nathan



From: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
    [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
    [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson)
  2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson)
  3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White)
  4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
  5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) ([hidden email])
  6. Re: dirt roads ([hidden email])
  7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100
From: John Henderson <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote:

> It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants
> tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only
> a single lane.  I.E. when there are LESS than one in each
> direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds.
>
> Any thoughts?

I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass.  Exceptional
conditions should be flagged as appropriate.

But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass
should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment.  Caravaners are
especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as
are truck drivers.

The width or est_width tags from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in
most such circumstances.

John



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100
From: John Henderson <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 21/10/12 13:28, [hidden email] wrote:
> OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest
> too!)
>
> I  use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough
> for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both
> need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for
> overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of
> caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.

That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible.
I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short
sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock
face on the other.

Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
"access:caravan=unsuitable"

John




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100
From: Matt White <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

>
> Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones !
>
> I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly,
> because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the
> wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map
> data ends up being looked at.
>
> As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
> I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
> to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
> are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>
In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render
the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or
Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC).

The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD only' to
the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have anything.

I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of information
- often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but
perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is navigable in a
2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so once you
are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those
instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important requirement.

Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are
dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the
Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA.

Matt



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:54:03 +1100
From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 21/10/12 13:35, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
> I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
> to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
> are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !

Personally, I would find a tag

4x4_only=no
source:4x4_only=survey

Would be a great tag on a dirt road.  In means that someone has surveyed
it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.

Ian.



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:27:57 +1030
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
Message-ID:
    <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

?

Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement every
one is ! Thanks folks !? If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary
in a few days.

> From: "Nathan Van Der Meulen"

> Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make
it any less important than many others.

Far from it, I live on a dirt road !

>? David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some
...pass a few Falcons and Commodores),
Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had
a broken rear axle.

> it is in fact a NT state highway ....
Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both
the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag.

> ....These just need to have their additional tags like
surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc.
Exactly! But we need to see those tags used.

  > I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map
rendering
Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ?

> highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection
purpose
Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but
its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and
file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4.

> For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads
tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads
tagged 4wd_only
Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any
interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats
the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface=
but it does not show up on the maps most people see.
Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and
4x4_only=recommended ?

Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input.

David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/a8e82711/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:35:53 +1030
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID:
    <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

?

Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ?
Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I
suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already
in the database would need to be updated.

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Sergeant"

Personally, I would find a tag

4x4_only=no
source:4x4_only=survey

Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has
surveyed
it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/08ae6bea/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:17:15 +1100
From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID:
    <CALDa4YKmjJSOesT18u7pUev31vD6-hdXnWvycv7W3-r-ydJ=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 21 October 2012 16:05,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of
> the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default
> is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to
> change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to
> be updated.

Not at all.  It is the correct default situation, of course, that a
4x4 is not required.  However a good survey of roads that are remote
should consider including additional detail on the road surface.

Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no
guarantee that a 4x4 is not required.  4x4_only=no is a useful
observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations).

I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not required
on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the
default, so the tag is useless.  Or worse still, does a selection for
all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis.

Ian.



------------------------------

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


End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
***************************************



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

Re: Dirt Roads

Ross Scanlon
Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.

An example of 4wd_only=yes here:

http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14&lat=-20.73023&lon=116.99701&layers=B0F

The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows "4WD Recommended".

It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this
and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed.

Cheers
Ross


On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote:

> Hi David
>
> Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within
> a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some
> more detail. We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due
> to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly
> trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done.
> Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper
> placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc.
>
> Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact there
> are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite
> poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf.
>
> Nathan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* "[hidden email]"
> <[hidden email]>
> *To:* [hidden email]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM
> *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson)
> 2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson)
> 3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White)
> 4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
> 5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) ([hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>)
> 6. Re: dirt roads ([hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>)
> 7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100
> From: John Henderson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
> Message-ID: <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote:
>
>  > It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants
>  > tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only
>  > a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each
>  > direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds.
>  >
>  > Any thoughts?
>
> I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional
> conditions should be flagged as appropriate.
>
> But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass
> should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are
> especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as
> are truck drivers.
>
> The width or est_width tags from
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in
> most such circumstances.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100
> From: John Henderson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 21/10/12 13:28, [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest
>  > too!)
>  >
>  > I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough
>  > for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both
>  > need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for
>  > overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of
>  > caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.
>
> That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible.
> I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short
> sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock
> face on the other.
>
> Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
> "access:caravan=unsuitable"
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100
> From: Matt White <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones !
>  >
>  > I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly,
>  > because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the
>  > wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map
>  > data ends up being looked at.
>  >
>  > As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
>  > I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
>  > to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
>  > are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>  >
> In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render
> the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or
> Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC).
>
> The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD only' to
> the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have anything.
>
> I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of information
> - often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but
> perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is navigable in a
> 2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so once you
> are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those
> instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important requirement.
>
> Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are
> dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the
> Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:54:03 +1100
> From: Ian Sergeant <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 21/10/12 13:35, [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >
>  > As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
>  > I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
>  > to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
>  > are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>
> Personally, I would find a tag
>
> 4x4_only=no
> source:4x4_only=survey
>
> Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has surveyed
> it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:27:57 +1030
> From: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> ?
>
> Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement every
> one is ! Thanks folks !? If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary
> in a few days.
>
>  > From: "Nathan Van Der Meulen"
>
>  > Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make
> it any less important than many others.
>
> Far from it, I live on a dirt road !
>
>  >? David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some
> ...pass a few Falcons and Commodores),
> Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had
> a broken rear axle.
>
>  > it is in fact a NT state highway ....
> Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both
> the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag.
>
>  > ....These just need to have their additional tags like
> surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc.
> Exactly! But we need to see those tags used.
>
>  > I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map
> rendering
> Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ?
>
>  > highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection
> purpose
> Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but
> its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and
> file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4.
>
>  > For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads
> tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads
> tagged 4wd_only
> Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any
> interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats
> the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface=
> but it does not show up on the maps most people see.
> Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and
> 4x4_only=recommended ?
>
> Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input.
>
> David
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/a8e82711/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:35:53 +1030
> From: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> ?
>
> Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
> presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ?
> Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I
> suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already
> in the database would need to be updated.
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Sergeant"
>
> Personally, I would find a tag
>
> 4x4_only=no
> source:4x4_only=survey
>
> Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has
> surveyed
> it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/08ae6bea/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:17:15 +1100
> From: Ian Sergeant <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID:
> <CALDa4YKmjJSOesT18u7pUev31vD6-hdXnWvycv7W3-r-ydJ=[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 21 October 2012 16:05, <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>  > Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
> presence of
>  > the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the
> default
>  > is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to
>  > change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would
> need to
>  > be updated.
>
> Not at all. It is the correct default situation, of course, that a
> 4x4 is not required. However a good survey of roads that are remote
> should consider including additional detail on the road surface.
>
> Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no
> guarantee that a 4x4 is not required. 4x4_only=no is a useful
> observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations).
>
> I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not required
> on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the
> default, so the tag is useless. Or worse still, does a selection for
> all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis.
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: dirt roads

Nathan Van Der Meulen
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
Unfortunately i can't find my original comments on tracks and 4wd_only, but I'll concede that highway=track doesn't necessarily mean 4wd_only=yes.

I don't like 4wd_only=no because many tracks that may be used by 2wds can rapidly deteriorate to a 4wd track and, as previously mentioned, weather can change everything.  I know forestry roads that are definitely classed as "touristy" roads but, add a bit of rain and keep the grader away for a while and that road is pretty rough in a 4wd.  No tag leaves the onus on the user to use his/her own discretion.  There's also the problem of what type of 2wd.  Yeah i know I'm picking at this but I've heard the comments from the knuckleheads.  A Falcon is a 2wd - as is a Kia Carnival and a Jag and a Ferrari.  Does 2wd_only mean all those?  No tag = up to the driver to work it out.

Nathan


From: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:00 PM
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 20

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
    [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
    [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. dirt roads - a summary (David Bannon)
  2. Re: dirt roads - a summary (Ian Sergeant)
  3. Re: dirt roads - a summary (Mark Pulley)
  4. Re: dirt roads - a summary (John Henderson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:39:53 +1030
From: "David Bannon" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
Message-ID:
    <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/0082fee5/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:08:18 +1100
From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+[hidden email]>
To: David Bannon <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
Message-ID:
    <CALDa4YLTFkUx7kx6O3YwnsSO69vTSs+[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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.



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:42:18 +1100
From: Mark Pulley <[hidden email]>
To: OSM - Talk-au <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121023/4fe2b26e/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:53:40 +1100
From: John Henderson <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

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


End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 20
***************************************



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

Re: dirt roads

Ian Sergeant-2
On 23/10/12 22:31, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote:
I don't like 4wd_only=no because many tracks that may be used by 2wds can rapidly deteriorate to a 4wd track and, as previously mentioned, weather can change everything.  I know forestry roads that are definitely classed as "touristy" roads but, add a bit of rain and keep the grader away for a while and that road is pretty rough in a 4wd.  No tag leaves the onus on the user to use his/her own discretion. 

I don't believe this is currently the case.  No tag implies the default, not "use at your own risk, depending on weather conditions, etc".

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

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Ross Scanlon
Ross, thats pretty cool.

My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki and then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's slippery map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all expected it to be do-able but nice to have it confirmed.

Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ?  I must admit I don't know just how good the relationship between fosm and osm is ?

David



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

To:
<[hidden email]>
Cc:

Sent:
Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:20:56 +1000
Subject:
Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads


Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.

An example of 4wd_only=yes here:

http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14&lat=-20.73023&lon=116.99701&layers=B0F

The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows "4WD Recommended".

It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this
and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed.

Cheers
Ross


On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote:
> Hi David
>
> Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within
> a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some
> more detail. We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due
> to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly
> trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done.
> Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper
> placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc.
>
> Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact there
> are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite
> poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf.
>
> Nathan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* "[hidden email]"
> <[hidden email]>
> *To:* [hidden email]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM
> *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson)
> 2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson)
> 3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White)
> 4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
> 5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) ([hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>)
> 6. Re: dirt roads ([hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>)
> 7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100
> From: John Henderson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
> Message-ID: <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote:
>
> > It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants
> > tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only
> > a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each
> > direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional
> conditions should be flagged as appropriate.
>
> But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass
> should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are
> especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as
> are truck drivers.
>
> The width or est_width tags from
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in
> most such circumstances.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100
> From: John Henderson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 21/10/12 13:28, [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
> > OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest
> > too!)
> >
> > I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough
> > for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both
> > need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for
> > overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of
> > caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.
>
> That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible.
> I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short
> sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock
> face on the other.
>
> Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
> "access:caravan=unsuitable"
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100
> From: Matt White <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones !
> >
> > I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly,
> > because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the
> > wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map
> > data ends up being looked at.
> >
> > As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
> > I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
> > to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
> > are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
> >
> In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render
> the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or
> Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC).
>
> The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD only' to
> the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have anything.
>
> I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of information
> - often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but
> perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is navigable in a
> 2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so once you
> are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those
> instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important requirement.
>
> Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are
> dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the
> Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:54:03 +1100
> From: Ian Sergeant <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID: <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 21/10/12 13:35, [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
> > I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
> > to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
> > are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>
> Personally, I would find a tag
>
> 4x4_only=no
> source:4x4_only=survey
>
> Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has surveyed
> it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:27:57 +1030
> From: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> ?
>
> Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement every
> one is ! Thanks folks !? If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary
> in a few days.
>
> > From: "Nathan Van Der Meulen"
>
> > Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make
> it any less important than many others.
>
> Far from it, I live on a dirt road !
>
> >? David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some
> ...pass a few Falcons and Commodores),
> Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had
> a broken rear axle.
>
> > it is in fact a NT state highway ....
> Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both
> the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag.
>
> > ....These just need to have their additional tags like
> surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc.
> Exactly! But we need to see those tags used.
>
> > I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map
> rendering
> Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ?
>
> > highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection
> purpose
> Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but
> its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and
> file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4.
>
> > For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads
> tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads
> tagged 4wd_only
> Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any
> interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats
> the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface=
> but it does not show up on the maps most people see.
> Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and
> 4x4_only=recommended ?
>
> Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input.
>
> David
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/a8e82711/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:35:53 +1030
> From: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> ?
>
> Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
> presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ?
> Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I
> suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already
> in the database would need to be updated.
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Sergeant"
>
> Personally, I would find a tag
>
> 4x4_only=no
> source:4x4_only=survey
>
> Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has
> surveyed
> it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/08ae6bea/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:17:15 +1100
> From: Ian Sergeant <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
> Message-ID:
> <CALDa4YKmjJSOesT18u7pUev31vD6-hdXnWvycv7W3-r-ydJ=[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 21 October 2012 16:05, <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> > Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
> presence of
> > the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the
> default
> > is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction I suggest its a bit late to
> > change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would
> need to
> > be updated.
>
> Not at all. It is the correct default situation, of course, that a
> 4x4 is not required. However a good survey of roads that are remote
> should consider including additional detail on the road surface.
>
> Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no
> guarantee that a 4x4 is not required. 4x4_only=no is a useful
> observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations).
>
> I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not required
> on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the
> default, so the tag is useless. Or worse still, does a selection for
> all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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

Re: Dirt Roads

Ian Sergeant-2
On 24 October 2012 09:48, David Bannon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki and
> then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's slippery map
> to do just what you have done there. I guess we all expected it to be
> do-able but nice to have it confirmed.

Hi David,

Have you seen this ticket?

https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1447

> Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ?

The trac call already has examples, do you think they are suitable?

I don't see the purpose in linking to styles from third parties unless
we have explicit permission from their owner/creator to use them in
OSM.

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

Ross Scanlon
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
I'm happy for you to use that link as a reference.

I'll refrain from commenting on the remainder of that para.

When the 4wd_only tagging was introduced it was attempted to get this
included in the mapping but there was reluctance to do so.

Like most proposals it did not have a rendering proposal included and is
something that should be mandatory for all proposals.  Including mapnik
xml at the very least.

Cheers
Ross


On 24/10/12 08:48, David Bannon wrote:

> Ross, thats pretty cool.
>
> My plan at the moment is to document this discussion on the OSM wiki and
> then start lobbying the people who maintain the OSM website's slippery
> map to do just what you have done there. I guess we all expected it to
> be do-able but nice to have it confirmed.
>
> Would you mind if I used that link as a reference ?  I must admit I
> don't know just how good the relationship between fosm and osm is ?
>
> David
>
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From:
>     [hidden email]
>
>     To:
>     <[hidden email]>
>     Cc:
>
>     Sent:
>     Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:20:56 +1000
>     Subject:
>     Re: [talk-au] Dirt Roads
>
>
>     Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.
>
>     An example of 4wd_only=yes here:
>
>     http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14&lat=-20.73023&lon=116.99701&layers=B0F
>
>     The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows "4WD Recommended".
>
>     It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this
>     and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed.
>
>     Cheers
>     Ross
>
>
>     On 22/10/12 06:53, Nathan Van Der Meulen wrote:
>      > Hi David
>      >
>      > Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use
>     (within
>      > a product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some
>      > more detail. We can't define 4wd_only=yes from
>     4wd_only=recommended due
>      > to software restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly
>      > trying to get 4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is
>     already done.
>      > Like most things in OSM, the end result really relies on proper
>      > placement and tagging - not only roads but also places etc.
>      >
>      > Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact
>     there
>      > are heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in
>     quite
>      > poor condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf.
>      >
>      > Nathan
>      >
>      >
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      > *From:* "[hidden email]"
>      > <[hidden email]>
>      > *To:* [hidden email]
>      > *Sent:* Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM
>      > *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
>      >
>      > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      >
>      > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>      > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>      > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>      > [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      >
>      > You can reach the person managing the list at
>      > [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      >
>      > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>      > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>      >
>      >
>      > Today's Topics:
>      >
>      > 1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson)
>      > 2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson)
>      > 3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White)
>      > 4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
>      > 5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) ([hidden email]
>      > <mailto:[hidden email]>)
>      > 6. Re: dirt roads ([hidden email]
>      > <mailto:[hidden email]>)
>      > 7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
>      >
>      >
>      >
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >
>      > Message: 1
>      > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100
>      > From: John Henderson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
>      > Message-ID: <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>      >
>      > On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote:
>      >
>      > > It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants
>      > > tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only
>      > > a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each
>      > > direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds.
>      > >
>      > > Any thoughts?
>      >
>      > I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional
>      > conditions should be flagged as appropriate.
>      >
>      > But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to
>     pass
>      > should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are
>      > especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing
>     conditions, as
>      > are truck drivers.
>      >
>      > The width or est_width tags from
>      > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more
>     appropriate in
>      > most such circumstances.
>      >
>      > John
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > ------------------------------
>      >
>      > Message: 2
>      > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100
>      > From: John Henderson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Cc: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
>      > Message-ID: <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>      >
>      > On 21/10/12 13:28, [hidden email]
>      > <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
>      > > OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest
>      > > too!)
>      > >
>      > > I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough
>      > > for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other
>     direction, both
>      > > need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for
>      > > overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of
>      > > caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.
>      >
>      > That's especially important if pulling off the road is also
>     impossible.
>      > I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short
>      > sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and
>     a rock
>      > face on the other.
>      >
>      > Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
>      > "access:caravan=unsuitable"
>      >
>      > John
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > ------------------------------
>      >
>      > Message: 3
>      > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100
>      > From: Matt White <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
>      > Message-ID: <[hidden email]
>      > <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>      >
>      > On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, [hidden email]
>      > <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
>      > >
>      > > Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the
>     fun ones !
>      > >
>      > > I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly,
>      > > because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits
>     to the
>      > > wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how
>     our map
>      > > data ends up being looked at.
>      > >
>      > > As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz.
>     However,
>      > > I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the
>     only way
>      > > to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
>      > > are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>      > >
>      > In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render
>      > the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or
>      > Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC).
>      >
>      > The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD
>     only' to
>      > the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have
>     anything.
>      >
>      > I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of
>     information
>      > - often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but
>      > perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is
>     navigable in a
>      > 2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so
>     once you
>      > are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those
>      > instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important
>     requirement.
>      >
>      > Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are
>      > dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the
>      > Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA.
>      >
>      > Matt
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > ------------------------------
>      >
>      > Message: 4
>      > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:54:03 +1100
>      > From: Ian Sergeant <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
>      > Message-ID: <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>      >
>      > On 21/10/12 13:35, [hidden email]
>      > <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
>      > >
>      > > As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz.
>     However,
>      > > I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the
>     only way
>      > > to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
>      > > are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>      >
>      > Personally, I would find a tag
>      >
>      > 4x4_only=no
>      > source:4x4_only=survey
>      >
>      > Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has
>     surveyed
>      > it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.
>      >
>      > Ian.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > ------------------------------
>      >
>      > Message: 5
>      > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:27:57 +1030
>      > From: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
>      > Message-ID:
>      > <[hidden email]
>      >
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>      >
>      > ?
>      >
>      > Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement
>     every
>      > one is ! Thanks folks !? If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary
>      > in a few days.
>      >
>      > > From: "Nathan Van Der Meulen"
>      >
>      > > Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't
>     make
>      > it any less important than many others.
>      >
>      > Far from it, I live on a dirt road !
>      >
>      > >? David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some
>      > ...pass a few Falcons and Commodores),
>      > Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had
>      > a broken rear axle.
>      >
>      > > it is in fact a NT state highway ....
>      > Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both
>      > the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag.
>      >
>      > > ....These just need to have their additional tags like
>      > surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc.
>      > Exactly! But we need to see those tags used.
>      >
>      > > I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map
>      > rendering
>      > Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ?
>      >
>      > > highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection
>      > purpose
>      > Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but
>      > its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and
>      > file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4.
>      >
>      > > For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads
>      > tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads
>      > tagged 4wd_only
>      > Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any
>      > interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats
>      > the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface=
>      > but it does not show up on the maps most people see.
>      > Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and
>      > 4x4_only=recommended ?
>      >
>      > Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input.
>      >
>      > David
>      >
>      >
>      > -------------- next part --------------
>      > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>      > URL:
>      >
>     <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/a8e82711/attachment-0001.html>
>      >
>      > ------------------------------
>      >
>      > Message: 6
>      > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:35:53 +1030
>      > From: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
>      > Message-ID:
>      > <[hidden email]
>      >
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>      >
>      > ?
>      >
>      > Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
>      > presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ?
>      > Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no
>     restriction. I
>      > suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads
>     already
>      > in the database would need to be updated.
>      >
>      > David
>      >
>      > ----- Original Message -----
>      > From: "Ian Sergeant"
>      >
>      > Personally, I would find a tag
>      >
>      > 4x4_only=no
>      > source:4x4_only=survey
>      >
>      > Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has
>      > surveyed
>      > it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.
>      >
>      >
>      > -------------- next part --------------
>      > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>      > URL:
>      >
>     <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/08ae6bea/attachment-0001.html>
>      >
>      > ------------------------------
>      >
>      > Message: 7
>      > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:17:15 +1100
>      > From: Ian Sergeant <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Cc: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
>      > Message-ID:
>      > <CALDa4YKmjJSOesT18u7pUev31vD6-hdXnWvycv7W3-r-ydJ=[hidden email]
>      > <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>      >
>      > On 21 October 2012 16:05, <[hidden email]
>      > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>      >
>      > > Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
>      > presence of
>      > > the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ?
>     Currently, the
>      > default
>      > > is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction I suggest its a
>     bit late to
>      > > change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would
>      > need to
>      > > be updated.
>      >
>      > Not at all. It is the correct default situation, of course, that a
>      > 4x4 is not required. However a good survey of roads that are remote
>      > should consider including additional detail on the road surface.
>      >
>      > Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no
>      > guarantee that a 4x4 is not required. 4x4_only=no is a useful
>      > observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations).
>      >
>      > I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not
>     required
>      > on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the
>      > default, so the tag is useless. Or worse still, does a selection for
>      > all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis
>      >
>      > Ian.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > ------------------------------
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Talk-au mailing list
>      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>      >
>      >
>      > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
>      > ***************************************
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Dirt Roads

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Ross Scanlon
On 22/10/12 11:20, Ross Scanlon wrote:

> Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.
>
> An example of 4wd_only=yes here:
>
> http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14&lat=-20.73023&lon=116.99701&layers=B0F
>
> The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows "4WD Recommended".
>
> It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this
> and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed.
That is neat.

Using broken lines for the casing of classified roads which are unpaved,
I think would be a huge improvement to the cartography.



_______________________________________________
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: Dirt Roads

Ross Scanlon
On 26/10/12 08:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> On 22/10/12 11:20, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>> Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.
>>
>> An example of 4wd_only=yes here:
>>
>> http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14&lat=-20.73023&lon=116.99701&layers=B0F
>>
>> The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows "4WD Recommended".
>>
>> It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text substitution for this
>> and what you actually show on the map can easily be changed.
>
> That is neat.
>
> Using broken lines for the casing of classified roads which are unpaved,
> I think would be a huge improvement to the cartography.
>
>
I agree.

I'm still working on that one.

Cheers
Ross


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