Quest enhancement: Surface for footways etc.

[Sora1248]

I suggest to add highway=footway, highway=cycleway and highway=path to the "Road Surface" quest so pedestrian, bicycle, wheelchair, inline skating, whatever routing can benefit from surface information, too. Without surface information these "optimal" routes can have some muddy surprises (speaking from experience).

[westnordost]

I'd probably try to find different "panorama" photos for ground, unpaved, paved first that depict ways rather than roads.

[Natenom]

@westnordost I can make photos if you can't find some.

[westnordost]

You can, but I cannot guarantee you if I like them ;-) Here is what I need:

They must be

• generic: neither clearly any particular type of way, i.e. cycleway, forest path or a sidewalk nor any particular type of pavement (<- this is hard)
• symbolic: not contain many distinctive features that deviate from their meaning (= paved, unpaved, ground).

And should be

• international: try to be as generic country/region wise as possible. I.e. the road panorama are from Italy, US and I think somewhere in South East Asia. That's why I chose country roads for the road pictures.
• straight: like the road pictures, also ~same perspective

[HolgerJeromin]

I think your current highway images are working really good even with footways, cycleway or all highways. This is an important change as surface only rendered on the main map style on osm.org

[rindlerblabla]

So do I.

[westnordost]

Yeah but on the other hand, it is not really that much effort to find 3 more way-like pictures.

It needs to be an own quest anyway because the question, the icon shall be different and because it should be counted in a different category later for the statistics (not in "road" category, but in "pedestrian/cycle" category)

[LivInTheLookingGlass]

I also like the current pictures, and think they're pretty applicable here.

[matkoniecz]

Recent changes to surface quest interface strongly deemphasized generic images. Is it still necessary to find separate images for paths and cycleways?

[westnordost]

Imo yes. Also c'mon, it's just three pictures.

On February 5, 2018 at 9:15 AM Mateusz Konieczny notifications@github.com wrote:

Recent changes to surface quest interface strongly deemphasized generic images. Is it still necessary to find separate images for paths and cycleways? —You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

 

[BjornRasmussen]

I have some photospheres that might work for tracks:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VzhiJin8IUIMFnQzOLeyDurttyeVPnbuXA/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTCdX9MdcchIHnQBoRfB2C8IoG4ZsKlKAg/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RJn5CW_AijVCWWtQ_cKHXmGFksTZ2ua9SQ/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WzgNFt9REDWXkSWnufWcUYDfTlSOg-QYnQ/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16ACozF0ckZIiCCAZ7E-YuLHQLwEngNJzWQ/view?usp=drivesdk

[westnordost]

They are good pictures! This is the quest for footways though but perhaps they can be used for this as well. @ENT8R has a PR open for track types. What is the license for these pictures?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RJn5CW_AijVCWWtQ_cKHXmGFksTZ2ua9SQ/view could be for paved https://drive.google.com/file/d/16ACozF0ckZIiCCAZ7E-YuLHQLwEngNJzWQ/view for unpaved and https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VzhiJin8IUIMFnQzOLeyDurttyeVPnbuXA/view perhaps for ground. Though, for ground, I guess just as well the picture from the street-surface quest could be used.

[BjornRasmussen]

I own the photos, but would be delighted if StreetComplete used them! If it is necessary to release them into the public domain, I can do that. You mentioned that this is a foot path quest, so I decided to take some more photospheres of foot paths.

Paved foot path: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11C0ylKtvr60sI3snocuGnwpPK7kKl2ko/view?usp=sharing

Unpaved foot path: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i1xnoKc3LrSzNPSWcnKlIG9HCeh_iFHE/view?usp=sharing

Ground foot path: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13NEa_a64Q4KNRSCux8hA9f7oRp0idyp5/view?usp=sharing

Also, I thought that the unpaved track photo was not obviously unpaved. (Looked too much like asphalt in my opinion) Here is a better unpaved track photo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BvehpmF461AKmRc2XSV7MrYTojFLlMeI/view?usp=sharing

The photo I took of a paved track was a little too dark too clearly see that it was paved. Here is a better one: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jA0r2jhg8POxrowjRJZE18ttOQhl1fWJ/view?usp=sharing

For ground, I think that the existing image in StreetComplete will work well. That one should be retained. (I could not find a good track with surface ground in my area to photograph)

We can either make tracks and footpaths different quests or just keep them together as one. I don't have strong opinions on that. One thing we definitely need to keep in mind is greenways). In the USA, a greenway is usually a 3 meter wide paved trail designated for use by any pedestrian or non-motorized vehicle. They are usually tagged as "highway=cycleway" in OSM and should definitely be included in the Footpath-Surface quest.

[rugk]

If it is necessary to release them into the public domain, I can do that.

Public domain is possible, but not required. You can also choose a license like a Creative Commons one, but choose one, which is a "free culture" license.

[westnordost]

CC-BY-SA or CC-BY would be possible

On May 23, 2018 9:33:07 AM GMT+02:00, rugk notifications@github.com wrote:

If it is necessary to release them into the public domain, I can do that.

Public domain is possible, but not required. You can also choose a license like a Creative Commons one, but choose one, which is a "free culture" license.

[BjornRasmussen]

I officially release the following six images under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11C0ylKtvr60sI3snocuGnwpPK7kKl2ko/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i1xnoKc3LrSzNPSWcnKlIG9HCeh_iFHE/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/13NEa_a64Q4KNRSCux8hA9f7oRp0idyp5/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BvehpmF461AKmRc2XSV7MrYTojFLlMeI/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jA0r2jhg8POxrowjRJZE18ttOQhl1fWJ/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/192R5OPNlOctTUs1YBl7dto182HXGdE6z/view?usp=sharing

============================================================

For paths, I think that we should include the option to choose bricks as a surface. Brick paths are very common where I live. I added a suitable image of bricks at the bottom of the list of images above.

[matkoniecz]

include the option to choose bricks as a surface

I considered bricks to be a type of paving stones in my tagging.

[westnordost]

It is, but that doesn't make it wrong. Strictly speaking, even sett is a type of paving stone.

Edit: Well, perhaps not in the openstreetmap definition, but I guess you get the idea.

[matkoniecz]

Strictly speaking, even sett is a type of paving stone.

To be more exact: I considered them suitable for surface=paving_stones (that at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface is described as "A relatively smooth surface paved with artificial blocks (block pavers, bricks) or (...)"

[BjornRasmussen]

The wiki does not have bricks listed as a suitable tagging, however, the ID editor includes it as a preset.

[westnordost]

@BjornRasmussen Hmm I think there might be a problem with these photos. The panorama photos usually have (maximum) dimensions of 1152x384px (for smartphones with super-high pixel density). The (center) portion of these pictures that would be usable is just about half of that resolution. Do you have these pictures in higher resolution?

[BjornRasmussen]

They are 6144 x 3072 pixels. Is that not high enough resolution?

[BjornRasmussen]

After I crop them to the correct size for use in StreetComplete, the resolution is still 1164 x 482.

[westnordost]

Oh, that's enough. Then I guess I just looked at a preview or something.

[westnordost]

I decided to use the "track" photos (paved, unpaved) for the path quest (which includes paths, cycleways, footways, bridleways, steps) because it is not untypical for a path to be this broad and anyway, the scale of ways are not really obvious anyway. The track photos simply have more of the way on the photo, which I think is better than to show too much stuff on the left and right side.