<div dir="ltr"><div>Two notes:<br>1) I see tracktype used in Italy on highways other than track and have don so myself. Happens for roads that are classified form their traffic importance different from track, but which are physically similar to track and threfore can be classified by tracktype<br>
</div>2) In Germany, Austria, northern Italy, many tracks (agriculture/forestry roads) are tarmacked and usually tagged tracktype=grade1; surface=asphalt<br><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On 31 December 2013 17:45, Richard Welty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rwelty@averillpark.net" target="_blank">rwelty@averillpark.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="im">
<div>On 12/31/13 11:10 AM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've been interested in proposing a change to Carto's style
(Mapnik's main style) to allow visual identification of
unpaved roads for any kind of road, much like the Humanitarian
style does, which bases this decision on values of the surface
tag. The Brazilian community has shown interest on this many
times, since lack of this feature causes unaware users to
classify roads incorrectly. David Bannon proposes (below) that
we use the tracktype tag for that instead, but I've never seen
it being used for anything besides roads with highway=track
(therefore, not a very common practice it seems). Do you think
we should encourage its use in conjunction with unclassified,
tertiary, secondary and primary highways?<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
i've been known to use tracktype with highways other than tracks,
generally in<br>
conjunction with setting surface=(gravel,dirt, etc.) there are rural
parts of<br>
the US where such classification seems appropriate to me. i'm not
sure if it's<br>
still true, but back in the 70s Vermont had state highways surfaced
with<br>
gravel.<br>
<br>
tracktype works well for this; if it's not common usage now, maybe
the<br>
wiki should be tweaked to suggest such usage.<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>It seems to me that surface=compacted is quite similar in
meaning to tracktype=grade1 (whereas surface=sand,
surface=dirt, and others, could be equated with other grades
but rarely with grade1, particularly because the "compacted"
value exists) and so both tags could be used for the same
rendering purpose. Do you agree?<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
i frequently use<br>
<br>
highway=unclassified<br>
tracktype=grade1<br>
surface=gravel<br>
<br>
in cases where the road is well maintained and able to support
traffic.<br>
many, many farm roads in the midwestern US meet this description;<br>
they don't particularly need to be paved, but they do need to
support<br>
heavy farm equipment moving from field to field.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
richard<br>
<br>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>