[Tagging] Proposed rewrite Of highway=track wiki page
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Tue Mar 9 09:57:13 UTC 2021
It is for sure, so is forestry. And I agree fully that this "defintion"
is misleading.
Track has a major place in it.
So after elimination as I described the actual socio-economic
classification contains the following classes:
Trunk (or strategic)
Primary (or strategic)
Secondary (or collector)
Tertiary (or feeder)
Residential (local for residential, or mix of
residential/commercial/industrial)
Unclassified (local, but specific for commercial/industrial - changed
this after Zeke's clarification) - in Africa more broadly used also for
any road that can't or isn't clearly identifiable as feeder, collector
or strategic road.
Service (serves a more specific service and not intended for general
public use).
Track (everything remaining that doesn't fit in the above, so for sure
agriculture, forestry but also natural parks etc...).
Track is the term in this classification used to fill the gap. And here
I see the biggest problem, as "unclassified" at least in Africa, is in
the first place used to fill that gap but I also sense some confusion in
other parts of the world.
So we have some job to do there, avoid the confusion between track vs
unclassified.
Maybe we did it wrong from the beginning, but i suggest we first
concentrate on a good definition for track, in the socio-economic
classification as the basis and socio-economic considerations as the
first and most significant.
So maybe this is better:
Tracks are all transport routes that are not assigned to one of the
other "socio-economic highway classes". As such it is an important
socio-economic class by itself, filling the void.
I think it's important we avoid trying to define what exactly, either
social or economic or socio-economic combination should be applicable
for track. It's not wrong to name forestry and agriculture but we
already experienced how that in many cases let's people misinterpret it
as being for agriculture and forestry only. You add f.i. natural parks
then they will tend to say oh it's only for those three...
It is the "filler" term for a gap that will always be there, the base.
Notice that I purposely propose not to use the term "road" in the
definition, neither in any of the other socio-economic classes because
it causes another major confusion. Many tracks are created by animals,
large animals create tracks in the natural environment, but also in the
agricultural economy. These tracks are in many cases also used by humans.
Road is broadly a term used and in peoples minds in the context of human
transport only. Introducing the "human" factor specifically in the
definitions in the top-level highway definitions, both socio-economic or
throughput or management will always lead to confusion, undermining the
use of track as a base and as a very suitable term to fill the gap in
the socio-economic and throughput classification.
After we agree on that we still have some work to do, in my minds and in
this concept, I still have issues with "unclassified" and or "road". But
it's better to focus first on a good definition for track as in line
with Zeke's proposal, which in my honest opinion is very close already
and of superb quality.
Greetings,
Bert Araali
On 09/03/2021 08:43, Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 09.03.21 à 00:06, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal a écrit :
>> Remains, what are tracks: all roads that have no specific
>> socio-economic purpose
> agriculture isn't a specific socio-economic purpose ?
> without it, everything else collapses
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210309/08ba74f9/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list