<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally
useful? <br>
The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from<br>
"To describe the quality of a track, see <tt dir="ltr"
class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype"
title="Key:tracktype">tracktype</a></bdi>=*</tt>.:<br>
to <br>
"To describe the quality of a track<tt>, use smoothness</tt><tt
dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"></bdi>=*</tt> and surface=*. In
some regions tracktype is also useful."<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4a6b1e07-3ff3-2533-e5cb-88ee895588fe@gmail.com"><br>
There is a visibility tag.
<br>
<br>
So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.
<br>
<br>
Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all
that usefull.
<br>
<br>
I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.
<br>
<br>
Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
<br>
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground
clearance.
<br>
Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.
<br>
<br>
Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
<br>
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road
that has been compacted.
<br>
Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.
<br>
<br>
But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard,
smooth and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a
skating ring (wet clay).
<br>
<br>
And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on
top .. with black goo underneath if you break through.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>