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

[brad haack]

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...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210408/bf4c3851/attachment.htm>