[Tagging] Proposed rewrite Of highway=track wiki page - Third Draft

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Wed Apr 7 14:29:59 UTC 2021


> If access roads to a forestry area are heavily used at the moment, because
> a specific area is being harvested at that moment, these are still
> low-usage roads when considered over a general timespan.
>
> Even if you take average over long time there are still highway=service
> with lower use
> than some highway=track (even if you exclude arterial highway=track)
>

Irrelevant, service roads aren't for access to the land, therefore usage
isn't a distinguishing factor between track roads and service roads.


> If you are talking about arterial roads that are used to access a larger
> network of access roads to forestry areas, and are used continuously to
> access different logging spots
>
> If it arterial logging road then it is still highway=track.
>

This is absurd logic and surely the first time that someone has claimed
that an artery could be tagged as a track - taken to its logical
conclusion, it would imply that if, hypothetically, a private logging
company in the vast woods of Maine built a 4-lane paved road or even a
motorway as a main artery to allow their trucks access to their logging
network, we would tag that as track.  At some point the line needs to be
drawn between simple land access and higher class roads.  A supposed road
with sustained high-traffic over a long period of time quite simply fails
the "duck test" as a logging road.

and these are functionally not track roads
>
> Why? They are also access road to land, rather than to something else
>

Simply put, because trees take decades to grow, so any road used as access
to a logging area that has sustained, continual usage, over a period of
years and not just at the moment because the trees are matured in a
particular area, clearly has an arterial functional usage, rather than a
land-access one.


> -- these are roads used to access other roads, and thus are better tagged
> as unclassified or perhaps you could argue service.
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=49.49573&mlon=20.60244#map=17/49.49573/20.60244
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=49.49573&mlon=20.60244#map=17/49.49573/20.60244&layers=N>
> and many other highway=track are providing access to more minor
> highway=track
>

Fair enough, these forks in the track are clearly not functioning as
arterial roads, which is what I mean by "roads used to access other roads"

The point about driveways is irrelevant here, as driveways are a distinct
> class of road separate land access roads.
>
> OK, there are also highway=residential with miniscule use.
>

Neither of these are for access to the land, therefore there is no
confusion with track roads, and the amount of usage those roads have is
irrelevant to the question of how track roads should be described.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210407/dfb6951f/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list