[Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Greg Troxel]

Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> writes:

> I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be
> based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of cases
> where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track"
> (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].  Before I change these,
> I wanted to check with the rest of the community.

I agree with those who say driveways should be highway=service
service=driveway, unless they are so difficult to drive on that they are
really not recommended in a passengar car.

Not really germane to driveways, but a major distinction, at least
around me (ma.us) is that

  a road is a legal thing, with its own parcel

  a track is an agricultural road, or old time logging road, within a
  parcel

However, drivways are also not legally roads in terms of separate
parcels.


I also agree that this is a problem partially becuase of the default
style not showing dirt roads as dirt.  Whether a road is dirt or paved
is hugely important in all areas where both types exist.  My impresssion
is that England doesn't really have dirt roads because they would be too
muddy.  In New England they are quite common.  My town halfway from
Boston to Worcester has a few and as you go farther out there are more.
I think using track to get a dirt symbol is bad.  But, my impression is
that the symbology plan to short dirt roads on carto is considered too
hard, for reasons that may be valid but that I don't understand.  I
think it's so important that even some ugliness is better than not
showing it.