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

brad bradhaack at fastmail.com
Mon Jul 27 23:36:53 UTC 2020

On 7/27/20 11:19 AM, Rob Savoye wrote:
> 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.
I'm in central Colorado, & around here, I agree, tracktype is not 
useful, the tracks here are mostly solid, grade 2 or 3, but could be a 
high clearance, or 4wd road due to rocks and ledges.
However, smoothness could, and should be rendered.   The old maps 
usually distinguished between
improved - smoothness=bad or better than bad
high clearance - smoothness=very_bad (the wiki specifically mentions 
high clearance for this tag)
4wd - smoothness=horrible

In my area an almost bigger issue is that a lot of roads shown on OSM, 
and on the county GIS, are actually private and closed.   That may not 
be an issue for you though, if you have an emergency, and bolt cutters.

In regards to your initial question, I've never seen the key narrow 
used, or lanes on an unpaved road.   I think width would be better. That 
probably wouldn't get rendered either, I've never considered it.
>> 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 -
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list