[talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." specifically motor bikes

osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au
Sat Oct 30 04:21:16 UTC 2021

With the caveat that the access tags should reflect legal basis of access, not physical suitability or actual usage.


If the path in question is not legally allowed for motorcycle, then don’t tag motorcycle=yes, even if it’s physically possible and people (illegally) use it that way.


If you want to indicate that a path or track is physically not wide enough for larger vehicles, just tag width=* (to specify the width of the path on the ground) or maxwidth:physical=* (to specify the maximum physical width of a vehicle that fits through) on it (but not maxwidth=*, as that implies that there is a legally defined limit).


While not widely used, you might also use access tags with :physical suffix, e.g. motorcycle=no + motorcycle:physical=yes





From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 12:17
To: EON4wd <info at eon4wd.com.au>
Cc: iansteer at iinet.net.au; OSM-Au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." specifically motor bikes


I would have thought highway=track would have been good, but that page is quite adamant that a "track" is for 4-wheel vehicles, & anything smaller is supposed to be a highway=path.




They also say that specifying motor-bike, but not car is done via access=*, but don't suggest just how!


I'm guessing highway=path + motor_vehicle=no + motorcycle=yes?







On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 11:46, EON4wd <info at eon4wd.com.au <mailto:info at eon4wd.com.au> > wrote:

That would be logical, but motor bikes are classified as a vehicle and are the only ones using this ‘path’ which ends up being mapped as a track via the satellite picture.

Path does not imply motor bikes. 

Legally it is allowed to be used as a path, but motor vehicles are not allowed.

The motor bike tracks would be difficult to use as a walking track and also for a bicycle.

If the tracks were reclassified as a path, it would at least show something that is on the ground plus also imply that it is not allowed for vehicles.

What if the motor bike track is legal, how would you then classify the track if it is not wide enough for any car?

Thanks Ian


From: iansteer at iinet.net.au <mailto:iansteer at iinet.net.au>  <iansteer at iinet.net.au <mailto:iansteer at iinet.net.au> > 
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 11:11 AM
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)


I’ve always mapped a track that’s not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path.





Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100

From: "EON4wd" <info at eon4wd.com.au <mailto:info at eon4wd.com.au> >

To: <talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in           Nerang

                National Park)

Message-ID: <000001d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au <mailto:000001d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au> >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


>>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate. 

Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211030/22227a57/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list