[Tagging] Proposed rewrite Of highway=track wiki page - Third Draft
bradhaack at fastmail.com
Fri Apr 9 02:24:32 UTC 2021
On 4/8/21 1:08 PM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2021, at 01:44, Kevin Broderick <ktb at kevinbroderick.com
> <mailto:ktb at kevinbroderick.com>> wrote:
> The only other caveat I'd bring up is with the "not a track"
> bullet for "A trail, path, or other way that is not intended for
> motor vehicles"; I don't know if "not used for motor vehicles by
> the public" or something similar might be a little better.
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 3:55 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
> maybe we could add “that is not OR NO MORE intended for motor
> vehicles”. Some tracks are actually old roads which have been
> replaced by a newer road.
> The bullet point in question is an example of a situation where
> highway=track is not appropriate:
> * A trail, path, or other way that is not intended for motor
> vehicles. See highway=path and highway=pedestrian
> I think I will revise it to this:
> * A trail or path that is not intended for motor vehicles. See
> highway=path, footway, cycleway, and bridleway
I don't think that works. There are many trails, just wide enough for a
single track track vehicle that are open to motorcycles. I don't think
motor vehicle access belongs in the distinction between path and track.
We have access tags for that.
> The goal of this bullet point is to state that if a way can more
> accurately be tagged as path, footway, cycleway, or bridleway then one
> of those should be used instead. To me it seems that to qualify as
> highway=track, a way should get some amount of usage by four wheeled
> motor vehicles. This may be very rare in some cases with the majority
> of use being other transport types. However, if the way is really not
> intended for motor vehicles at all, then it seems to me that
> highway=track isn't appropriate. Of course workers might drive a four
> wheeled motor vehicle on a path, footway, cycleway, or bridleway (if
> wide enough) to do maintenance or in an emergency, so it's hard to
> draw an exact line between ways used by motor vehicles and ways that
> are not. Still I think it is fair to say that a highway=track is
> generally intended for some motor vehicles, while a path is generally not.
I think if a way was created for 2 track vehicle, and could still be
driven with a 2 track vehicle it's a track. I'm not referring to open
terrain where a 2 track vehicle could just drive anywhere (open desert
or farmland). If there was some construction, maintenance, or useage at
some time, and it is still wide enough for a 2 track vehicle it's a track.
> Another option would be to swap the condition of "intent" for a
> condition of "width":
> * A trail or path that is not wide enough for a typical four wheeled
> motor vehicle. See highway=path, footway, cycleway, and bridleway
I like that much better.
> I had something similar to this in a previous draft and received
> feedback that defining a minimum width was a bad idea. Four wheeled
> motor vehicles vary in width (mini tractors to dump trucks) so how can
> we say what is typical? I feel this works fine and we can say it is
> up to local mappers to decide what they consider a common or typical
> vehicle width in their region.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging