Proposed features/Surface Quality
|Proposal status:||Abandoned (inactive)|
|Definition:||Improved and universal quality marking|
|Rendered as:||Depends on a renderer, nothing by default|
It should be clear just by looking at an example:
|3||Excellent quality, some minor faults may be present, but they don't affect driving comfort.|
|2||Quality is good enough for car, but cycling is not pleasant. A driver must be prepared for anything.|
|1||The road is drivable, but not at maximum permitted speed. There are places where a driver must slow down. Driving in car is not comfortable.|
|0||The worst quality, road is hardly drivable even on 4WD. Lots of holes, branches and such. Speed is minimal.|
Of course, for different surfaces quality is measured differently. Below are documented grades for most used ones.
|3||Smooth surface with no or parallel faults.|
|2||The surface is smooth, but with perpendicular faults, for example, between concrete blocks on which asphalt was laid. Occasional holes, easyly spotted at a distance. Possible колейность.|
|1||Definitely not fresh asphalt layer. Lots of holes, some of which can be spotted only after driving in them.|
|0||It is asphalt only by name. It can be spotted here and there, but mostly it is holes, sand, gravel and other stuff, a driver should proceed very carefully and at a minimum speed.|
Also suitable for concrete:plates and concrete:lanes.
Also suits values of grass, sand, mud, earth, dirt. Tag value should probably be more generic (unpaved:grade?).
- Proposed features/Surface:all weather
- Proposed features/surface unification
Please use the Talk Page for discussion.
Will probably never happen. This page documents the tagging style the author uses, but it won't be approved because there are many other schemes for marking road quality.