<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Verdana">It is for sure, so is forestry. And I agree
fully that this "defintion" is misleading.<br>
Track has a major place in it.<br>
So after elimination as I described the actual socio-economic
classification contains the following classes:<br>
Trunk (or strategic)<br>
Primary (or strategic)<br>
Secondary (or collector)<br>
Tertiary (or feeder)<br>
Residential (local for residential, or mix of
residential/commercial/industrial)<br>
Unclassified (local, but specific for commercial/industrial -
changed this after Zeke's clarification) - in Africa more
broadly used also for any road that can't or isn't clearly
identifiable as feeder, collector or strategic road. <br>
Service (serves a more specific service and not intended for
general public use).<br>
Track (everything remaining that doesn't fit in the above, so
for sure agriculture, forestry but also natural parks etc...).</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Track is the term in this classification
used to fill the gap. And here I see the biggest problem, as
"unclassified" at least in Africa, is in the first place used to
fill that gap but I also sense some confusion in other parts of
the world.<br>
So we have some job to do there, avoid the confusion between
track vs unclassified.<br>
Maybe we did it wrong from the beginning, but i suggest we first
concentrate on a good definition for track, in the
socio-economic classification as the basis and socio-economic
considerations as the first and most significant.<br>
<br>
So maybe this is better:<br>
Tracks are all transport routes that are not assigned to one of
the other "socio-economic highway classes". As such it is an
important socio-economic class by itself, filling the void.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I think it's important we avoid trying to
define what exactly, either social or economic or socio-economic
combination should be applicable for track. It's not wrong to
name forestry and agriculture but we already experienced how
that in many cases let's people misinterpret it as being for
agriculture and forestry only. You add f.i. natural parks then
they will tend to say oh it's only for those three...<br>
It is the "filler" term for a gap that will always be there, the
base. <br>
<br>
Notice that I purposely propose not to use the term "road" in
the definition, neither in any of the other socio-economic
classes because it causes another major confusion. Many tracks
are created by animals, large animals create tracks in the
natural environment, but also in the agricultural economy. These
tracks are in many cases also used by humans. <br>
Road is broadly a term used and in peoples minds in the context
of human transport only. Introducing the "human" factor
specifically in the definitions in the top-level highway
definitions, both socio-economic or throughput or management
will always lead to confusion, undermining the use of track as a
base and as a very suitable term to fill the gap in the
socio-economic and throughput classification.<br>
<br>
After we agree on that we still have some work to do, in my
minds and in this concept, I still have issues with
"unclassified" and or "road". But it's better to focus first on
a good definition for track as in line with Zeke's proposal,
which in my honest opinion is very close already and of superb
quality.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Greetings,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Bert Araali<br>
</font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/03/2021 08:43, Marc_marc wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3df2a109-5dbf-c9cc-fcce-94fecf1003cf@mailo.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Le 09.03.21 à 00:06, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Remains, what are tracks: all roads that have no specific
socio-economic purpose
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
agriculture isn't a specific socio-economic purpose ?
without it, everything else collapses
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>