[Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/10/22 Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net>:
> On 10/22/2010 02:18 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
>>
>> On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags
>>> for a 3 m wide and paved "path" and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and
>>> unmaintained "path".
>>
>> If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it's paved it's grade1, if it's
>> worse its a lower grade.
>
> No.  Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a track.
> There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t have anything
> physically preventing cars from driving down it (and in fact they’re driven
> on by county park vehicles for maintenance and catching people using them
> without a trail pass.) That does not make it a highway=track.


in germany that would probably be tagged as track or service with
appropriate access tags.

Paths that are wide enough for cars but still paths are for instance
found in mountain regions, where inclination and surface actually
prevent almost all vehicles from passing. It is sufficient to have
un-passable parts only now and then to make the whole path
un-passable.

cheers,
Martin