<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>On 2/24/2021 2:35 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MUHxbyM--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div>3) <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/849614298">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/849614298</a> (just down
the hill) is a<br>
</div>
<div>abandoned/disused section of formerly residential road,
physically<br>
</div>
<div>blocked at both ends but passable by foot. It was once two
lanes, but is<br>
</div>
<div>so overgrown that the usable width is less than a full lane
in some<br>
</div>
<div>spots. A fair amount of the old asphalt is still visible,
and physically<br>
</div>
<div>it would (if the barriers were removed) be driveable by
most<br>
</div>
<div>not-overly-large vehicles with decent clearance.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Neither highway=residential nor highway=service seemed
appropriate, so I<br>
</div>
<div>settled on highway=track here as well.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I tagged exact feature like that as highway=footway...<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>IMO it's a matter of the extent of the decay. If I'd tagged it
the day the barriers were erected, I'd've been torn between
leaving it as highway=residential (+ access=no foot=yes) or
changing to highway=pedestrian -- because physically it still
could have functioned as a road. Now, some years later, it's no
longer suitable as a road, but physically many vehicles could
still drive on it. I'd guess it's about 5 to 10 years away from
being a footway or path.</p>
<p>A related question worth considering: If the map says I'm looking
for a footway, but what I see is an overgrown road, how do I know
that I'm at the right place? surface=overgrown_asphalt? I feel the
ambiguity of highway=track is actually an advantage here.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MUHxbyM--3-2@tutanota.com">
<div>access=no<br>
</div>
<div>foot=yes<br>
</div>
<div>highway=track<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>just makes it harder to recognize as something walkable
without cars.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Definitely true for anyone casually browsing the map. I know we
shouldn't tag for the renderer, but it's tempting to go with
motor_vehicle=no instead of access=no, especially if I could nail
down what to put for bicycle. (And of course I also concede the
temptation to tag it as a path or footway since I'm convinced that
it's heading that direction inexorably.)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MUHxbyM--3-2@tutanota.com">
<div>Do you remember where it was blocked?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>access=private<br>
</div>
<div>foot=yes<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>is tagged already, but it may be useful to convey that
physical access,<br>
</div>
<div>not only legal one, is restricted.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So tagging at least one of that blockades would be useful.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I didn't get the impression these were permanent blockages, just
evidence of extremely minimal maintenance. I doubt the track would
still be blocked in the same locations. Maybe something like
smoothness=horrible would help get the idea across.</p>
<p><br>
Jason<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MUHxbyM--3-2@tutanota.com">
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>