[talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 5 08:34:28 GMT 2012


On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:59 PM, David Findlay
<david at woodypointcomms.com.au> wrote:
> I contributed quite a bit of stuff locally mapped with GPS(usually multiple
> tracks on multiple different days, averaged) a few years back. I notice now
> there seems to be quite some disdain for GPS tracks.
>
> I've recently recorded various bush walking, biking and 4wd trails, most of
> which aren't easily visible from aerial imagery. Is this ok? I've just uploadd
> a change set before with a few drains that weren't marked and some bush trails
> suitable for walking or cycling. I marked them as "Tracks" with cars,
> motorcyles and stuff set to no.
>
> How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks,

Certainly not disdained upon, although I would prefer tracing imagery
for areas with accurate high-res imagery like nearmap, the GPS tracks
are still most welcome, especially so in other areas.

I generally reserve highway=track for ways wide enough for a car to
traverse, and as per the wiki are "Roads for agricultural use, gravel
roads in the forest etc."

If they are only wide enough for walking or cycling I would use highway=path.

I thought foot, bicycle, motorcycle, motorcar = no was for where it is
signed as not allowed rather than you would find it difficult to
traverse in a...

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Mark Pulley <mrpulley at lizzy.com.au> wrote:
>> How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks,
> highway=track; surface=unpaved; if 4wd only then also add 4wd_only=yes

>From experience I've found this is really hard to determine. Often the
road quality varies and I don't really want to subdivide 30km of track
into 10m segments where some are 4wd_only and some aren't. I find it
hard to subjectively decide how small a non-4wd only section is worth
splitting up as a segment.



More information about the Talk-au mailing list