[talk-au] : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[iansteer at iinet.net.au]

Personally, I'm not too fussed about mapping to suit trail bikes in the bush
- they go anywhere they feel like anyway :-)  The main advantage of mapping
it as a path is that 4WDs won't get routed down them.

However, while the OSM definition for path does include the words " and not
intended for motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately".  Does "unless
tagged so separately" mean you could add the tag "motorcycles=yes" to the
path ??

I also wouldn't worry about how difficult it would be to walk or ride a
bicycle on a motor bike path - as long as it is possible for athletic &
skilled people to do so.  Even Class 5 walking tracks are classified as
paths.  There are all sorts of tags that can be used to classify the
difficulty of the "track" (that I'm not familiar with).

Ian

>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 12:39:30 +1100
>From: "EON4wd" <info at eon4wd.com.au>
>To: <iansteer at iinet.net.au>,	<talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails."
>	specifically motor bikes
>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