[Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

Rob Savoye rob at senecass.com
Mon Jul 27 17:19:57 UTC 2020


On 7/27/20 11:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=*
> tags as necessary.  Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit
> US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness
> are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads.

  That's roughly what I've been doing, Drive or hike there, and decide
on the values for those tags while standing there. I'm still curious
about "narrow" though. :-) I don't think smoothness gets rendered
though, and everything is usually a grade2, so somewhat meaningless.

> itself.  If the placard has a horizontal orientation (read from left to
> right), then it's intended to be passable by most vehicles but may or
> may not be paved.  If the placard has a vertical orientation (read from
> top down), then don't count on your car being able to make it, you'll
> probably need something with ground clearance and 4WD if it's
> traversable at all with a motor vehicle.

  Yep, we teach our trainees that, and since we use current USGS topo
maps as basemaps in OsmAnd, you get that and the OSM data. Best of both.
Sure beats the days we used a thick paper map book, and a bag of topo maps.

  Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference
doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change
drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance
vehicle or UTV and decide after driving it.

	- rob -



More information about the Tagging mailing list