[talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas
tangararama at gmail.com
Thu Jan 5 16:07:10 GMT 2012
On 06/01/2012, at 12:27 AM, David Findlay wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:34:28 PM Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> 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
>> I thought foot, bicycle, motorcycle, motorcar = no was for where it
>> signed as not allowed rather than you would find it difficult to
>> traverse in a...
> So for instance I've just added a track in Freshwater National Park.
> designated as a walking trail, but is really a 4wd track with a gate
> at the
> end. So I've added it as a Track, but tagged no motorcycle or
> motorcar, but
> said foot and bicycle yes. Sounds correct? In another area the
> tracks are
> often again wide enough for 4wd's, but fences prevent vehicular
> access so I've
> made them paths? Thanks,
Gated gravel tracks in national parks wide enough for vehicles are
often both Fire Trails and Park Management roads that can be used by
NPWS vehicles. These tracks often are also designated public walking/
I've come across access=forestry ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
) for forestry management purposes but not sure about emergency
Can we come up with a common set of tags for such tracks that will -
* allow forestry management access
* allow emergency service access
* allow pedestrian and bicycle access
* prevent general motor vehicle / motorcycle access
Also - do we do this at the gate, or apply access to the section of
the way itself ?
More information about the Talk-au