<div dir="ltr"><div>Ah, I think I've let the mapping of tracks local to me influence my stance too much. And for context of my interest here, my plan was to bikepack the Track but that got put off due to covid and family.</div><div><br></div><div>The Australian guidelines don't say much about =tertiary, but bouncing over to the main =tertiary page at <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary</a>:</div><div>"Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate traffic which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets. For quieter linking roads, consider using highway=unclassified instead."<br><br>Given this along with your points, leaving it set as unclassified is likely the right call.</div><div><br></div><div>And this discussion so far has modified my overall view to be:</div><div>- tertiary: roads that are used as genuine links between two towns</div><div>- unclassified: if driving it is more a recreational activity than a need for a thoroughfare, even if it links two localities</div><div>- track: more limited access for whatever reason: drivability, lesser usage, gated, spurs from unclassified, fire trails, etc</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I'd agree with 4WD recommended, if coming from the south most camp sites can be accessed with little trouble in a reasonable vehicle.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The signage says 4WD-only in all the photos I've seen. But I've also driven on the initial portion of 4WD-only track in a 2WD. Is the solution to note the signage somehow, but tag the actual ways as to their genuine accessibility ie south section = recommended, north section = required?</div><div>(Back in the early days of GPS navigation I was routed out of Wombeyan Caves on the eastern side, which was an... experience.)</div><div><br></div><div><font color="#202122" face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.000001px"></span></font></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 19:32, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 21/2/23 14:42, Josh Marshall wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Australian road tagging guidelines at <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads</a> arguably
override the general OSM guidelines, and they read:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>highway=track: "Service and access roads that aren't part
of the general road network. Generally not paved, often not
public access for vehicles."... in rural "Fire trails,
forest drives, 4WD tracks, and similar roads.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>highway=unclassified is: "Minor roads that are neither
tertiary or residential roads. Not generally through
routes."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Given that, I'd argue =track is the right option.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The Bridal Track is open to the public, part of the general road
network and a through route. It would never have been reopened if
it was not for public money. at lest not reopened to the public. <br>
</p>
<p>So from that you could say tertiary. I'd not go that far. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A tangent, but I'm rather happy that iD<span> _</span><b>finally_</b> fixed
their English description for =track (it included
"unmaintained" for a long time; many were quite annoyed at
the original change to include that)... and I can't find any
discussion about why they finally gave in and reverted it!
Vested interest, since it along with =path are likely my two
most used, given I map a lot of bush with fire trails and
run/ride singletrack.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at
09:23, cleary <<a href="mailto:osm@97k.com" target="_blank">osm@97k.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
The name should not constrain the classification of the
highway (e.g. Dowling Track, Ooodnadatta Track). And, as
I've commented previously in other threads, the DCS NSW Base
Map can be quite outdated. <br>
<br>
However, a quick look at a YouTube video suggests that the
Bridle Track should still be tagged as 4WD only (it was
signposted as such and probably still is). Wikipedia reports
that part of the route is new, apparently a diversion around
the landslide that blocked the old track at Monaghans Bluff.
I'd prefer not to change the OSM tags etc until someone
surveys the route. <br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The Bridal Track has been brought up to a very high standard ...
so the pollies would have no trouble opening ! It will not stay
that way - I have been told no water truck was used in the
constructions .. <br>
</p>
<p>I'd agree with 4WD recommended, if coming from the south most
camp sites can be accessed with little trouble in a reasonable
vehicle. The problem is the hill going upto Hill End .. t6hat can
get lost of erosion .. and it is narrow with blind corners. <br>
</p>
<p>I do know the Track fairly well from a number of trips. The
diversion looks to be less of an obstruction compared to the more
difficult bits, at leas until it is weathered.. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, at 9:17 PM, Warin wrote:<br>
> Hi<br>
><br>
> This track is now continuous having been closed due to
a rock fall and <br>
> road collapse at Monaghans Bluff.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Given the importance of the road and that it is not
really a 'track' in <br>
> the OSM sense (Roads for mostly agricultural or
forestry uses) ... and <br>
> that the DCS Base Map places it at least tertiary level
I would think <br>
> that all of this 'track' be classified in OSM as
'unclassified'.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thoughts?<br></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div></div>