Quantcast

unpaved roads

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

unpaved roads

Gerd Petermann
Hi all,

I noticed that the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
mentions a few more surface values which are considered unpaved compared to the default style.
The current rule in the lines file contains  this
highway=*
& (surface=cobblestone | surface=compacted | surface=dirt |
   surface=earth | surface=grass | surface=grass_paver |
   surface=gravel | surface=grit | surface=ground | surface=mud |
   surface=pebblestone | surface=sand | surface=unpaved |
   mtb:scale=* |
   tracktype ~ 'grade[2-6]' |
   smoothness ~ '.*(bad|horrible|impassable)' |
   sac_scale ~ '.*(mountain|alpine)_hiking' |
   sport=via_ferrata)
{ add mkgmap:unpaved=1 }

The wiki also llists these as unpaved:
gravel_turf , fine_gravel, ice, salt, snow, woodchips

I think the rule should at least contain gravel_turf, snow, and woodchips.
My understanding is that fine_gravel, ice , and salt are rather smooth surfaces.

Comments?

Gerd
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Dave Swarthout
But none are "paved" in the usual sense of that word. I would hate to drive on a "fine gravel" road, or an ice road, unless I was prepared for it. Even if the fine gravel were on top of a compacted substrate it would present a hazard to bicycles and motorcycles. I'm not sure I care how a "salt" road is classified - I've never seen one let alone driven on one.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Gerd Petermann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I noticed that the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
mentions a few more surface values which are considered unpaved compared to
the default style.
The current rule in the lines file contains  this
highway=*
& (surface=cobblestone | surface=compacted | surface=dirt |
   surface=earth | surface=grass | surface=grass_paver |
   surface=gravel | surface=grit | surface=ground | surface=mud |
   surface=pebblestone | surface=sand | surface=unpaved |
   mtb:scale=* |
   tracktype ~ 'grade[2-6]' |
   smoothness ~ '.*(bad|horrible|impassable)' |
   sac_scale ~ '.*(mountain|alpine)_hiking' |
   sport=via_ferrata)
{ add mkgmap:unpaved=1 }

The wiki also llists these as unpaved:
gravel_turf , fine_gravel, ice, salt, snow, woodchips

I think the rule should at least contain gravel_turf, snow, and woodchips.
My understanding is that fine_gravel, ice , and salt are rather smooth
surfaces.

Comments?

Gerd



--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/unpaved-roads-tp5890722.html
Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

ligfietser

It really depends on the user, the region etc.

In my bicycle map I consider fine_gravel cycleways as paved because my users are mainly touring cyclists and those paths are (at least in my region) excellent for touring. But not suitable for racing bicycles, for them those cycleways  are unpaved.


I would suggest to make it unpaved for generic use and use a regular expression sytax to catch all combinations. In my OFM I solved this by using


surface ~ '.*(ash|bad|clay|cob|compact|dirt|earth|erde|gr|loam|mud|peb|sand|shotter|rock|turf|unpaved).*'





Dave wrote:
 
But none are "paved" in the usual sense of that word. I would hate to drive on a "fine gravel" road, or an ice road, unless I was prepared for it. Even if the fine gravel were on top of a compacted substrate it would present a hazard to bicycles and motorcycles. I'm not sure I care how a "salt" road is classified - I've never seen one let alone driven on one.



_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

ligfietser
Talking about surface=ice, how do we handle ice_road=yes? Those roads are common in the Arctic regions and cross frozen lakes, so only accessible in winter. See http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ls3

In the generic new style map I made those roads unroutable.
https://github.com/ligfietser/mkgmap-style-sheets/blob/master/styles/generic%20new/lines
highway=* & ice_road=yes { addlabel 'ice road' } [0x10002 resolution 24]


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Gerd Petermann
In reply to this post by ligfietser
Yes, quite difficult.
My understanding is that we don't really care about paved/unpaved here, it is more about smoothness, and probably most of the people contributing here are cyclists.
I've cycled > 33.000 km through many European countries during the last years and I'd prefer to avoid surface
cobblestone or concrete:plates which are "paved" but painful
while I really like to travel on fine_gravel as long as it is not raining heavily.
On the racing bike I'd prefer to avoid surfaces which are not smooth, but I nearly stopped cycling on them.

This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the surface).

Do you agree on that (last sentence)?

Gerd




________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von lig fietser <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017 09:38:03
An: Development list for mkgmap; [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] unpaved roads

It really depends on the user, the region etc.

In my bicycle map I consider fine_gravel cycleways as paved because my users are mainly touring cyclists and those paths are (at least in my region) excellent for touring. But not suitable for racing bicycles, for them those cycleways  are unpaved.


I would suggest to make it unpaved for generic use and use a regular expression sytax to catch all combinations. In my OFM I solved this by using


surface ~ '.*(ash|bad|clay|cob|compact|dirt|earth|erde|gr|loam|mud|peb|sand|shotter|rock|turf|unpaved).*'



________________________________
Dave wrote:

But none are "paved" in the usual sense of that word. I would hate to drive on a "fine gravel" road, or an ice road, unless I was prepared for it. Even if the fine gravel were on top of a compacted substrate it would present a hazard to bicycles and motorcycles. I'm not sure I care how a "salt" road is classified - I've never seen one let alone driven on one.


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

ligfietser

I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular tag.



Gerd wrote
This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the surface).

Do you agree on that (last sentence)?

Gerd



_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Dave Swarthout
In reply to this post by ligfietser
I have never mapped any myself. Mostly, AFAIK, ice roads are used by large vehicles on the North Slope of Alaska where they haul supplies to the oil fields or out to wellheads in the Arctic Ocean. There are only three in Alaska, two are service roads, one uses the ice_road=yes tag, the other surface=ice while the last is actually a ferry route on a frozen river. That one was tagged with ice_road=yes and surface=ice_road. I changed the surface tag to surface=ice and left the other tags as is but I don't think tagging a ferry route as an ice_road is correct. 

As for tagging, I would consider them unpaved at the minimum because IMO drivers of ordinary vehicles would generally want to avoid them. In the case of the oil field service roads, those are most likely restricted (acess=private) anyway so shouldn't be used in a routing scenario. Your ice_road rule looks good to me and sidesteps the question of setting them to unpaved nicely.

I found your full surface rule and inserted it into my lines style sheet instead of the one I had been using.

Thank you.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:08 PM, lig fietser <[hidden email]> wrote:
Talking about surface=ice, how do we handle ice_road=yes? Those roads are common in the Arctic regions and cross frozen lakes, so only accessible in winter. See http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ls3

In the generic new style map I made those roads unroutable.
https://github.com/ligfietser/mkgmap-style-sheets/blob/master/styles/generic%20new/lines
highway=* & ice_road=yes { addlabel 'ice road' } [0x10002 resolution 24]


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Nuno Pedrosa
In reply to this post by ligfietser
Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will get covered in dirt.
There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s), regardless of their width. 

I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface be solid enough to drive in a regular car?

So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow, earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular vehicles.
Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large, unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around every nook and cranny in the valleys.

So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.

Nuno Pedrosa.

PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list, though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my “noise” to a minimum!


On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular tag.


Gerd wrote
This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the surface).

Do you agree on that (last sentence)?

Gerd


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Gerd Petermann
Hi Nuno,

you are welcome!
My understanding is that everybody who thinks about the "avoid unpaved roads" feature in Garmin units a bit longer will come to the solution that they have to either
accept what the preferred style is doing or else to fork an own version of that style (assuming that this is allowed).
Many rules in the default style assume that you are in a rather developed country, I think they work very good for countries where traffic is similar to Germany or the UK regarding
the interpretation of highway types like tertiary, secondary etc, probably not so well for many countries outside Europe.

Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Nuno Pedrosa <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017 11:57:13
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] unpaved roads

Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will get covered in dirt.
There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s), regardless of their width.

I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface be solid enough to drive in a regular car?

So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow, earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular vehicles.
Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large, unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around every nook and cranny in the valleys.

So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.

Nuno Pedrosa.

PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list, though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my “noise” to a minimum!


On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular tag.

________________________________
Gerd wrote
This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the surface).

Do you agree on that (last sentence)?

Gerd

<http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev>
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Carlos Dávila-2
In reply to this post by Nuno Pedrosa
I don't agree with you. I think default style is a generic style, and as
such, it shouldn't do much guess but use the strict meaning of tags.
Gravel, fine_gravel, ice, etc. are strictly unpaved and I would mark
them as such in default style. More specific uses (mtb/race
bicycle/4wd...) require specific maps and thus specific styles.
@Mark: I'm also cyclist and for mtb use your "raining" point of view of
paved/unpaved is important to be considered.

El 07/02/17 a las 11:57, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:

> Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel
> roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
> These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to
> some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will
> get covered in dirt.
> There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and
> these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s),
> regardless of their width.
>
> I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions
> and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light
> truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface
> be solid enough to drive in a regular car?
>
> So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow,
> earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular
> vehicles.
> Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large,
> unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are
> a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around
> every nook and cranny in the valleys.
>
> So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.
>
> Nuno Pedrosa.
>
> PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list,
> though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find
> that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my
> “noise” to a minimum!
>
>
>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category
>> unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor
>> vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to
>> the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular
>> tag.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Gerd wrote
>> This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The
>> surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
>> and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a
>> paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part
>> of the surface).
>>
>> Do you agree on that (last sentence)?
>>
>> Gerd

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Gerd Petermann
Hi all,

I tried to create a patch for the rules which set mkgmap:unpaved using the wiki and taginfo:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surface#values

One probem with surface is that we have so many values (taginfo lists 4844 different today),
many of them typos or combinations like "ground;grass" or nonsense like "paved;unpaved"
I guess many of the latter were produced by "connect ways" functions in OSM editors, so not fully intended.

Anyhow, my impression is that it would be better to change the rule so that it checks the known
paved surfaces and assumes that all others mean unpaved.
The current rules are quite old, it was introduced with r1425 and last changed with r1489.

Comments?
Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Carlos Dávila <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017 12:39:49
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] unpaved roads

I don't agree with you. I think default style is a generic style, and as
such, it shouldn't do much guess but use the strict meaning of tags.
Gravel, fine_gravel, ice, etc. are strictly unpaved and I would mark
them as such in default style. More specific uses (mtb/race
bicycle/4wd...) require specific maps and thus specific styles.
@Mark: I'm also cyclist and for mtb use your "raining" point of view of
paved/unpaved is important to be considered.

El 07/02/17 a las 11:57, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:

> Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel
> roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
> These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to
> some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will
> get covered in dirt.
> There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and
> these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s),
> regardless of their width.
>
> I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions
> and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light
> truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface
> be solid enough to drive in a regular car?
>
> So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow,
> earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular
> vehicles.
> Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large,
> unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are
> a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around
> every nook and cranny in the valleys.
>
> So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.
>
> Nuno Pedrosa.
>
> PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list,
> though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find
> that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my
> “noise” to a minimum!
>
>
>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category
>> unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor
>> vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to
>> the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular
>> tag.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Gerd wrote
>> This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The
>> surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
>> and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a
>> paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part
>> of the surface).
>>
>> Do you agree on that (last sentence)?
>>
>> Gerd

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

ligfietser

Gerd,
I suppose you first look if surface=* ? And what if surface is empty?



Gerd wrote:

Anyhow, my impression is that it would be better to change the rule so that it checks the known
paved surfaces and assumes that all others mean unpaved.
The current rules are quite old, it was introduced with r1425 and last changed with r1489.

Comments?
Gerd
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Nuno Pedrosa
In reply to this post by Carlos Dávila-2
Ok. But that will mean that in a generic map, a lot of places will be unroutable if the GPS is avoiding all unpaved roads. To reach them, the user will need to allow unpaved roads in the route. This will mean routing through sand roads and gravel roads alike.
It would be great if the GPS could handle semi-paved roads, as was mentioned, but it can't.

In a generic map, what will be most important? To reach the destination, or to avoid getting dirt in the car?
In Cadiz, Finca Las Lomas, s/n, 11179 Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain, would be mostly unreachable if avoiding gravel roads.
There are lots of places like this.

A side-thought: paved roads aren’t always the best option for a given region. They are more expensive to build and when they degrade, they get “hard holes”(*) and fixing them up will usually create bumps in every hole. If the traffic is low, gravel roads will probably be a better option and better yet if rain is uncommon, as is the case in southern Europe.

Nuno Pedrosa

(*) by “hard holes”, I mean pot-holes where the edges are very steep and the wheels will crash into it. Gravel roads tend to create pot-holes with soft edges, a lot easier to drive over.



On 7 Feb 2017, at 11:39, Carlos Dávila <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't agree with you. I think default style is a generic style, and as such, it shouldn't do much guess but use the strict meaning of tags. Gravel, fine_gravel, ice, etc. are strictly unpaved and I would mark them as such in default style. More specific uses (mtb/race bicycle/4wd...) require specific maps and thus specific styles.
@Mark: I'm also cyclist and for mtb use your "raining" point of view of paved/unpaved is important to be considered.

El 07/02/17 a las 11:57, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:
Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will get covered in dirt.
There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s), regardless of their width.

I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface be solid enough to drive in a regular car?

So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow, earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular vehicles.
Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large, unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around every nook and cranny in the valleys.

So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.

Nuno Pedrosa.

PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list, though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my “noise” to a minimum!


On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email] <[hidden email]>> wrote:

I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular tag.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd wrote
This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the surface).

Do you agree on that (last sentence)?

Gerd

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Gerd Petermann
In reply to this post by ligfietser
ligfietser wrote
I suppose you first look if surface=* ? And what if surface is empty?
Good point.
My understanding is that most road types are paved unless stated otherwise.
Exception: hw=track, bridleway, unsurfaced, maybe also path, although I don't
like that one.

Gerd


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Gerd Petermann
In reply to this post by Nuno Pedrosa
Hu Nuna,

If I got that right the Garmin algo uses unpaved roads if the target is only reachable via unpaved
roads, at least if the target itself is an unpaved road.

Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Nuno Pedrosa <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 12:27:11
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] unpaved roads

Ok. But that will mean that in a generic map, a lot of places will be unroutable if the GPS is avoiding all unpaved roads. To reach them, the user will need to allow unpaved roads in the route. This will mean routing through sand roads and gravel roads alike.
It would be great if the GPS could handle semi-paved roads, as was mentioned, but it can't.

In a generic map, what will be most important? To reach the destination, or to avoid getting dirt in the car?
In Cadiz, Finca Las Lomas, s/n, 11179 Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain, would be mostly unreachable if avoiding gravel roads.
https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Señora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d!8m2!3d36.293836!4d-5.880006<https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Se%C3%B1ora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d!8m2!3d36.293836!4d-5.880006>
There are lots of places like this.

A side-thought: paved roads aren’t always the best option for a given region. They are more expensive to build and when they degrade, they get “hard holes”(*) and fixing them up will usually create bumps in every hole. If the traffic is low, gravel roads will probably be a better option and better yet if rain is uncommon, as is the case in southern Europe.

Nuno Pedrosa

(*) by “hard holes”, I mean pot-holes where the edges are very steep and the wheels will crash into it. Gravel roads tend to create pot-holes with soft edges, a lot easier to drive over.



On 7 Feb 2017, at 11:39, Carlos Dávila <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

I don't agree with you. I think default style is a generic style, and as such, it shouldn't do much guess but use the strict meaning of tags. Gravel, fine_gravel, ice, etc. are strictly unpaved and I would mark them as such in default style. More specific uses (mtb/race bicycle/4wd...) require specific maps and thus specific styles.
@Mark: I'm also cyclist and for mtb use your "raining" point of view of paved/unpaved is important to be considered.

El 07/02/17 a las 11:57, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:
Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will get covered in dirt.
There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s), regardless of their width.

I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface be solid enough to drive in a regular car?

So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow, earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular vehicles.
Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large, unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around every nook and cranny in the valleys.

So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.

Nuno Pedrosa.

PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list, though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my “noise” to a minimum!


On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular tag.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd wrote
This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the surface).

Do you agree on that (last sentence)?

Gerd

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Carlos Dávila-2
In reply to this post by Nuno Pedrosa
I don't see the point of that example. It's a place in the countryside,
so people going there is probably aware they may need to travel over a
track. Anyway, there's a paved road that leads you only 220 m away from
Las Lomas, so you'll probably be able to reach the place even if unpaved
roads are disabled in the GPS. I'm sorry, but I don't see the need to
mark unpaved ways as paved.

El 08/02/17 a las 12:27, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:

> Ok. But that will mean that in a generic map, a lot of places will be
> unroutable if the GPS is avoiding all unpaved roads. To reach them,
> the user will need to allow unpaved roads in the route. This will mean
> routing through sand roads and gravel roads alike.
> It would be great if the GPS could handle semi-paved roads, as was
> mentioned, but it can't.
>
> In a generic map, what will be most important? To reach the
> destination, or to avoid getting dirt in the car?
> In Cadiz, Finca Las Lomas, s/n, 11179 Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz,
> Spain, would be mostly unreachable if avoiding gravel roads.
> https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Señora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d!8m2!3d36.293836!4d-5.880006 
> <https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Se%C3%B1ora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=%213m1%214b1%214m5%213m4%211s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d%218m2%213d36.293836%214d-5.880006>
> There are lots of places like this.
>
> A side-thought: paved roads aren’t always the best option for a given
> region. They are more expensive to build and when they degrade, they
> get “hard holes”(*) and fixing them up will usually create bumps in
> every hole. If the traffic is low, gravel roads will probably be a
> better option and better yet if rain is uncommon, as is the case in
> southern Europe.
>
> Nuno Pedrosa
>
> (*) by “hard holes”, I mean pot-holes where the edges are very steep
> and the wheels will crash into it. Gravel roads tend to create
> pot-holes with soft edges, a lot easier to drive over.
>
>
>
>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 11:39, Carlos Dávila <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree with you. I think default style is a generic style, and
>> as such, it shouldn't do much guess but use the strict meaning of
>> tags. Gravel, fine_gravel, ice, etc. are strictly unpaved and I would
>> mark them as such in default style. More specific uses (mtb/race
>> bicycle/4wd...) require specific maps and thus specific styles.
>> @Mark: I'm also cyclist and for mtb use your "raining" point of view
>> of paved/unpaved is important to be considered.
>>
>> El 07/02/17 a las 11:57, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:
>>> Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved
>>> gravel roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
>>> These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get
>>> to some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they
>>> will get covered in dirt.
>>> There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and
>>> these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s),
>>> regardless of their width.
>>>
>>> I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road
>>> conditions and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car
>>> or light truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will
>>> the surface be solid enough to drive in a regular car?
>>>
>>> So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow,
>>> earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all
>>> regular vehicles.
>>> Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges,
>>> large, unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and
>>> often are a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that
>>> go around every nook and cranny in the valleys.
>>>
>>> So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.
>>>
>>> Nuno Pedrosa.
>>>
>>> PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list,
>>> though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I
>>> find that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to
>>> keep my “noise” to a minimum!
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category
>>>> unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor
>>>> vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to
>>>> the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite
>>>> popular tag.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Gerd wrote
>>>> This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The
>>>> surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
>>>> and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a
>>>> paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was
>>>> part of the surface).
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree on that (last sentence)?
>>>>
>>>> Gerd

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Nuno Pedrosa
In reply to this post by Gerd Petermann
Hi Gerd,

I’m not sure about that, but it makes sense.

Thank you,
Nuno Pedrosa.

> On 8 Feb 2017, at 12:11, Gerd Petermann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hu Nuna,
>
> If I got that right the Garmin algo uses unpaved roads if the target is only reachable via unpaved
> roads, at least if the target itself is an unpaved road.
>
> Gerd
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Nuno Pedrosa <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 12:27:11
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] unpaved roads
>
> Ok. But that will mean that in a generic map, a lot of places will be unroutable if the GPS is avoiding all unpaved roads. To reach them, the user will need to allow unpaved roads in the route. This will mean routing through sand roads and gravel roads alike.
> It would be great if the GPS could handle semi-paved roads, as was mentioned, but it can't.
>
> In a generic map, what will be most important? To reach the destination, or to avoid getting dirt in the car?
> In Cadiz, Finca Las Lomas, s/n, 11179 Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain, would be mostly unreachable if avoiding gravel roads.
> https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Señora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d!8m2!3d36.293836!4d-5.880006<https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Se%C3%B1ora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d!8m2!3d36.293836!4d-5.880006>
> There are lots of places like this.
>
> A side-thought: paved roads aren’t always the best option for a given region. They are more expensive to build and when they degrade, they get “hard holes”(*) and fixing them up will usually create bumps in every hole. If the traffic is low, gravel roads will probably be a better option and better yet if rain is uncommon, as is the case in southern Europe.
>
> Nuno Pedrosa
>
> (*) by “hard holes”, I mean pot-holes where the edges are very steep and the wheels will crash into it. Gravel roads tend to create pot-holes with soft edges, a lot easier to drive over.
>
>
>
> On 7 Feb 2017, at 11:39, Carlos Dávila <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I don't agree with you. I think default style is a generic style, and as such, it shouldn't do much guess but use the strict meaning of tags. Gravel, fine_gravel, ice, etc. are strictly unpaved and I would mark them as such in default style. More specific uses (mtb/race bicycle/4wd...) require specific maps and thus specific styles.
> @Mark: I'm also cyclist and for mtb use your "raining" point of view of paved/unpaved is important to be considered.
>
> El 07/02/17 a las 11:57, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:
> Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
> These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will get covered in dirt.
> There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s), regardless of their width.
>
> I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface be solid enough to drive in a regular car?
>
> So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow, earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular vehicles.
> Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large, unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around every nook and cranny in the valleys.
>
> So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.
>
> Nuno Pedrosa.
>
> PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list, though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my “noise” to a minimum!
>
>
> On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular tag.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gerd wrote
> This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
> and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the surface).
>
> Do you agree on that (last sentence)?
>
> Gerd
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Nuno Pedrosa
In reply to this post by Carlos Dávila-2
Carlos, I see your point.

Thank you,
Nuno Pedrosa.

> On 8 Feb 2017, at 12:15, Carlos Dávila <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't see the point of that example. It's a place in the countryside, so people going there is probably aware they may need to travel over a track. Anyway, there's a paved road that leads you only 220 m away from Las Lomas, so you'll probably be able to reach the place even if unpaved roads are disabled in the GPS. I'm sorry, but I don't see the need to mark unpaved ways as paved.
>
> El 08/02/17 a las 12:27, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:
>> Ok. But that will mean that in a generic map, a lot of places will be unroutable if the GPS is avoiding all unpaved roads. To reach them, the user will need to allow unpaved roads in the route. This will mean routing through sand roads and gravel roads alike.
>> It would be great if the GPS could handle semi-paved roads, as was mentioned, but it can't.
>>
>> In a generic map, what will be most important? To reach the destination, or to avoid getting dirt in the car?
>> In Cadiz, Finca Las Lomas, s/n, 11179 Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain, would be mostly unreachable if avoiding gravel roads.
>> https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Señora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d!8m2!3d36.293836!4d-5.880006 <https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Se%C3%B1ora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=%213m1%214b1%214m5%213m4%211s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d%218m2%213d36.293836%214d-5.880006>
>> There are lots of places like this.
>>
>> A side-thought: paved roads aren’t always the best option for a given region. They are more expensive to build and when they degrade, they get “hard holes”(*) and fixing them up will usually create bumps in every hole. If the traffic is low, gravel roads will probably be a better option and better yet if rain is uncommon, as is the case in southern Europe.
>>
>> Nuno Pedrosa
>>
>> (*) by “hard holes”, I mean pot-holes where the edges are very steep and the wheels will crash into it. Gravel roads tend to create pot-holes with soft edges, a lot easier to drive over.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 11:39, Carlos Dávila <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't agree with you. I think default style is a generic style, and as such, it shouldn't do much guess but use the strict meaning of tags. Gravel, fine_gravel, ice, etc. are strictly unpaved and I would mark them as such in default style. More specific uses (mtb/race bicycle/4wd...) require specific maps and thus specific styles.
>>> @Mark: I'm also cyclist and for mtb use your "raining" point of view of paved/unpaved is important to be considered.
>>>
>>> El 07/02/17 a las 11:57, Nuno Pedrosa escribió:
>>>> Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods.
>>>> These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will get covered in dirt.
>>>> There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and these will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s), regardless of their width.
>>>>
>>>> I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions and width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light truck? Will it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface be solid enough to drive in a regular car?
>>>>
>>>> So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow, earth roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular vehicles.
>>>> Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large, unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are a better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around every nook and cranny in the valleys.
>>>>
>>>> So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”.
>>>>
>>>> Nuno Pedrosa.
>>>>
>>>> PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list, though I read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find that I can add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my “noise” to a minimum!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor vehicles I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to the unpaved list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular tag.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Gerd wrote
>>>>> This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface of a paved road should not change when it's raining
>>>>> and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the surface).
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you agree on that (last sentence)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gerd
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Gerd Petermann

Gerd Petermann <[hidden email]> writes:

> I tried to create a patch for the rules which set mkgmap:unpaved using
> the wiki and taginfo:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surface#values
>
> One probem with surface is that we have so many values (taginfo lists
> 4844 different today), many of them typos or combinations like
> "ground;grass" or nonsense like "paved;unpaved" I guess many of the
> latter were produced by "connect ways" functions in OSM editors, so
> not fully intended.
>
> Anyhow, my impression is that it would be better to change the rule so
> that it checks the known paved surfaces and assumes that all others
> mean unpaved.  The current rules are quite old, it was introduced with
> r1425 and last changed with r1489.
[I know I'm late to replying; I left the thread unread until I had time
to read it and think a bit.]

One question is what should "unpaved" mean.  That probably depends on
car vs bicycle, and it seems the real issue is that the Garmin format
isn't expressive enough to allow routing to decide later what it wants
to use.  Thus we are having to map each road to a paved yes/no, road
class, and speed class.

Another way to look at this is to ask why we are representing unpaved
roads, and what the routing policy is we are trying to achieve by that.
In my case, for car, generally what I want is to not use rough roads
(dirt, and even cobblestone) unless it's more or less necessary, which
I'd define as being the only way or saving lots of time, even if I drive
10 km/h on the rough road.

So I would suggest that we think of the Garmin unpaved flag as a "this
is a road I want to avoid, as opposed to a road I don't want to avoid"
bit, and not be so fixated on what paved means.  That may mean different
people build images with different rules.

Then, I would think about what an optimal route is, and how to get the
Garmin unit to compute one when it thinks it is doing shortest time and
avoiding unpaved.  So I would use the unpaved flag for roads that you
really don't want to use, even if they save time, and use lower speed
classes for roads that you have a mild preference for avoiding.

Of course, I am not really sure how this would work.  And I realize it's
trickier with bicycle, where you care about pleasant/safe and time is
not so much the point. But I think the only way is to try to map some
utility function into inverse speed and let the Garmin unit try to
minimize time, since apparently there's no way to compute other utility
functions directly.  So basically if you'd rather ride 5 miles on road A
than 1 mile on road B, as an alternative to get someplace, set A's speed
to 5x B's speed, and then min time will do the right thing, even if you
get bad time estimates.



_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

signature.asc (167 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: unpaved roads

Gerd Petermann
Hi Greg,

as you said we have to live with the limitations of the Garmin img format and the routing algo.
My understanding is that the default style should produce reasonable results for correct input data.

If I got you right you'd like to have some user interface (maybe sliders in a GUI) to express your
preferences of different road types or surface types and that should be used to "fine tune" the
values for road_speed, road_class, and the unpaved flag so that one doesn't have to understand all
the complex rules?

Gerd

________________________________________
Von: Greg Troxel <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 15:42
An: Gerd Petermann
Cc: Greg Troxel
Betreff: Re: AW: [mkgmap-dev] unpaved roads

[you didn't copy the list.  if you want me to post this I'm happy to.]

Gerd Petermann <[hidden email]> writes:

> okay, a bit late.

understood.  I didn't mean to complain, just to offer a perspective that
I thought might be helpful.

> The default style was already changed to set the unpaved flag in the
> same way as the surface wiki suggests.

Arguably that is the most reasonable default.

> I agree that this is just one of many ways to use the flag, but I have
> no idea what you try to describe with the part following "try to map
> some utility function ..." .

What I meant is that a routing user will have an opinion about the
usefulness/goodness of any route based on many things.  Right now there
is a strong bias towards "shortest distance" and "fastest time" in the
routing world and "least fuel" is starting to show up.

I probably should not have said "utility function".  That's a concept
from economics which assigns a numerical value to a situation, and
there's an assumption that a rational actor seeks to maximize utility.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility

This concept acknowledges lots of complexity.  A car that works but is
not fancy might be worth 100 points and one that is just as useful but
looks nicer 120, to one person.   Or 200 to someone who sees it as
jewelry/status, or 90 to someone who finds the niceness pointless and
then worries about damage.

What I was getting at is that for a route, one can think of each segment
as having a cost (which is sort of inverse utility), where the cost is
about how the route user feels about it.   Here, the cost function
encodes how one feels about surface types, speeds, distance, congestion,
traffic lights, left turns, etc.

Then, I was suggesting that optimal routing takes the OSM data and
compute a route with min user-cost according to the user's cost
function.  In OSMand you can sort of do this, because most of the OSM
data is or can be on the phone.

In Garmin, you can't, because we have to use the Garmin intermediate
representation and because we have to use the Garmin routing engine.
So, one could think about defining these user-cost functions, and then
trying to have a transformation of OSM data to Garmin data such that the
shortest time computation on the Garmin leads to a route that has
minimal user-cost.

> Do you suggest a new mkgmap option which overrides or influences the
> results of the style?  Can you give an example that shows the
> advantage compared to a "private" style ?

I think I'm really suggesting private styles, in some sense, but perhaps
something more than that, which is a language to express these user cost
functions and have that change the style.

This is arguably way too complicated.  Certainly it's premature until
there is a style that does something that people find more useful than
the default.

What I was really trying to do was to express the notion that correctly
encoding paved should not necessarily be the goal, but instead to allow
most people to be able to create good routes.

All that said, I find that around me, most connecting roads are paved
and it doesn't matter much.  In Upstate NY, there are connecting roads
that are unpaved.  But there, you really want to ask the question "would
I rather drive 10 miles unpaved or 50 miles paved" rather than just
"avoid".

This reminds me that max_speed isn't really the right thing either, but
OSM doesn't yet have a culture of "typical_speed".   To me, routing is
all about "on this route, what will my total experience be, and will I
prefer it to this other route's experience".  And that's very hard.

So thanks for listening, and hope it was worth your time!
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
12
Loading...