[talk-au] When is a Road a Track

Ross Scanlon info at 4x4falcon.com
Sat Feb 11 00:28:00 UTC 2017

On 11/02/17 07:00, Warin wrote:
> The NSW LPT base map is particularly helpful for road classifications 
> .. tracks, unclassified, tertiary and paths.
> It is in some ways better than a survey as it looks to take into 
> account the importance to the community and that is very hard to 
> determine by simply travelling the road.
> Where a 'track' travels a long distance .. say over 50 km I would 
> argue that it is 'unclassified' as that length suggests it is not a 
> simple service/maintenance track but a connection between distant points.
> As far as seeking out the 'interesting/adventure' roads .. I first 
> look for unpaved, then connecting. The old 'Tracks for Australia' 
> garmin map is helpful but well out of date.

So your saying above that a track like the Canning Stock Route should be 
an unclassified road?  It's about 1800kms and is definitely a track not 
a road.  There are some sections you could possibly call an unclassified 
road but they are not maintained.  For the majority of it's length it is 
two wheel tracks through the scrub and sand dunes.

I'd suggest everyone have a read of the wiki pages for track and 
unclassified.  I've always tagged them by looking to see if they are 
maintained/graded.  If they are graded, and that's generally pretty 
obvious from aerial imagery as well, then they are minimum 
unclassified.  If not then they are tracks.

Have a look at this area in josm, with bing imagery


or here it is on bing maps:


and where it's unsealed


Looking at the road that comes up from the south east and then according 
to MRWA it continues to the north west.
MRWA classifies the south east part as osm tertiary and the north west 
part as unclassified.

However I'd tag the north west part as track as it's little more than 
two wheel tracks through the scrub and the further you go along it the 
more it deteriorates.

> The condition/difficulty of the road is best determined by travelling 
> the road, I don't add that detail unless I have travelled it. I do add 
> surface=unpaved/paved ...
> on some bridges I remove the surface tag as I cannot be certain what 
> is there, on a few I change it to concrete.
> On 10-Feb-17 05:55 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>> Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ?  I personally think 
>> that you should only correct another mapper's work if you have 
>> personally seen something that needs correction. I am sure there are 
>> some exceptions. But here, in particular, you seem to have "negative" 
>> information.
>> Its also worth remembering that highway= indicates the purpose of the 
>> road or track, a number of other tags indicate its condition. In 
>> theory ....
>> David
>> On 10/02/17 10:51, Warren wrote:
>>> I have asked this question before but did not really get a clear 
>>> answer.
>>> I am working off the Western Australian Main Roads data checking 
>>> against the OSM road attributes.  Occasionally I come across lines 
>>> that are classed in OSM as highway:unclassified or 
>>> highway:residential that do not appear on the Main Roads data base.
>>> I would argue that these are named tracks rather than roads but I 
>>> wanted to check others opinion.
>>> Do I leave them alone or change the classification to highway:track?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

More information about the Talk-au mailing list