<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/4/21 4:57 pm, Peter Elderson
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+toHZWntWigV3Qsbkyp1G-ywF9ZB7L1d-kz6oz6Bmvmzw@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>Great job! Two remarks:</div>
        1.
        <div>Recreation is mentioned twice: first in "outdoor
          recreation" (track recommended) and second in "recreation
          grounds" (use service instead). 
          <div>I'm not British enough to know if outdoor recreation is
            sufficiently different from recreation grounds. But hey,
            that probably goes for most of the world! In my mind,
            outdoor recreation often takes place on recreation grounds.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>2.</div>
          <div>"Low importance roads" in the definition: that is, from a
            certain viewpoint. In other respects, a track can be very
            important, e.g. in terms of damages if it's blocked. Maybe
            just say minor roads, as you do a few times later on? <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Low importance roads may become very important .. say in a flood,
      fire or landslip. <br>
    </p>
    <p>Possibly 'normally low traffic' ? If 'important' then would it
      not have an appropriate traffic level? <br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+toHZWntWigV3Qsbkyp1G-ywF9ZB7L1d-kz6oz6Bmvmzw@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>
          <div><br>
            <div>
              <div>
                <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
                  data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Peter Elderson</div>
              </div>
              <br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op wo 7 apr. 2021 om 17:06
          schreef Zeke Farwell <<a href="mailto:ezekielf@gmail.com"
            moz-do-not-send="true">ezekielf@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
          0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div>All good points raised.  Let me just provide some
                  context for why I chose certain phrases.</div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>In an earlier draft I used the phrase "minor land
                  access roads".  I received feedback that the word
                  minor may not be clear enough when translated into
                  other languages so I changed it to "low importance
                  land access roads".  "low usage" could also work but I
                  think "minor" or "low importance" is preferable.  It
                  really is about the relative importance in the road
                  network in the same way we decide if unclassified,
                  tertiary, secondary, etc is appropriate.  track is of
                  lower importance to the network than these other
                  classifications.</div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>Re: "regular road network".  This is indeed vague,
                  but it does seem to be a concept that many mappers
                  have in their minds.  I received feedback stating that
                  track roads are something less than a regular road,
                  not part of the public network, and various other
                  statements to that effect.  It sounds like in Germany
                  there is even a legal distinction between "roads"
                  (Straße) and "ways" (Wege).  In other countries it
                  seems to be more of a general idea separating "roads
                  everyone uses" from "ways that aren't quite roads but
                  some motor vehicles use".  Perhaps there is a better
                  way to phrase it, but I think this additional
                  qualification beyond simply "land access roads" is
                  useful.  There are roads in remote areas of North
                  America that could easily be considered "land access
                  roads" because there is nothing but open land around
                  them, but track is not the appropriate classification
                  as they do serve as a connection between very distant
                  towns.  <br>
                </div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
              </div>
              <br>
              <br>
            </div>
            <br>
          </div>
          _______________________________________________<br>
          Tagging mailing list<br>
          <a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
            moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
          <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
            rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
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>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>