[Tagging] How to tag severely destroyed forest track?

John Willis johnw at mac.com
Mon Oct 27 22:49:44 UTC 2014


I was tagging tracks in the desert, and ran across some similar issues. Some of the tracks are abandoned because they were no longer needed/ wanted (officially) in a wilderness park, or heavily damaged or unmantainable because of the road's position in a ravine.  But people who want to use the old road with very high off-road skill, can drive them without flipping or destroying their off-road 4x4.  1m gullies and boulders make up sections of the road, requiring a bit of rock crawling to get through. 

This is not in a sports context, but necessity - access down a 1 km long ravine from a plateau in the badlands is the only way to continue north into the next (easily accessed) valley, without having to drive around the mountains for 3 hours. But you could get your truck stuck/ flipped/ totaled because the condition of the road is so unbelievably bad. It is beyond having 4x4 - it is having the skill and risk  acceptance required to go drive the road correctly. 

And yes, it is marked on USGS maps as a track. 

Javbw

> On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2014-10-27 15:22 GMT+01:00 Ronnie Soak <chaoschaos0909 at googlemail.com>:
>> It may be usable on foot if dried out over a long time or if frozen.
> 
> 
> yes, this is a general problem with unpaved ways that usability might (depending on the actual composition and grain size) heavily depend on the weather conditions, especially humidity and temperature.
> 
>  
>> 
>> tracktype does not offer a solution for this, as worse grades are described as being closer to undisturbed nature, while the opposite is the case here.
> 
> 
> actually tracktype is not about "undisturbed nature", it is about how much the way is built up and how much not, in combination with actual smoothness / usability (i.e. it is somehow subjective). In your case it would probably be a tracktype=grade5 because otherwise the way would not have been damaged that much ;-)
> 
>  
>> 
>> sac_scale comes to mind, but this is a track not a path and it has nothing to do with alpine hiking.
> 
> 
> +1, wouldn't use it
> 
>  
>> 
>> track_visibility does also not cover this, as these tracks are if anything MORE visible now.
> 
> 
> +1
> 
>  
>> 
>> Even surface or smoothness can't describe this, as simply tagging this bumpy and muddy does not do the situation justice. (And they are not picked up by enough renders/routers, for which we of course do not tag.)
> 
> 
> IMHO surface can still be useful to describe the surface and smoothness to describe the lack of smoothness.
> 
> I'd go for surface=earth and tracktype=grade5 and maybe a smoothness indication (not sure what are currently suggested values, maybe very_horrible ;-) ). When the surface material is soft the unevenness might fix itself with the rain in the next months anyway.
> 
> What do you mean by "unusable by foot"? Is this about getting your shoes and trousers dirty or would you have to climb "artificial cliffs"?
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141028/9155023b/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list