[Talk-GB] Unfit for motors - tagging for routing

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com
Mon Dec 10 18:53:40 GMT 2012


On 10 December 2012 15:11, Gregory Williams
<gregory at gregorywilliams.me.uk> wrote:
> I think that changing the class of the road to service isn’t the best way of
> recording the data. These roads will quite often legally be an unclassified
> highway and changing the class away from that just isn’t accurate.

Although I'd agree with your general point, it should be noted that
there are also routes which are physically farm tracks that are
technically unclassified highways. Many of the routes shown on OS maps
as "Other Route with Public Access" will fall into this category. Some
of these routes may have a reasonable surface, others will be terrible
and only
suitable for very rugged 4x4s. I think most people would agree that it
would be rather silly to use highway=unclassified highway for these
rural tracks that definitely don't look like normal roads. Instead
I've used highway=track based on the physical appearance, and then
added designation=unclassified_highway to record the legal
classification.

While it's certainly less clear-cut what to do for routes which are
surfaced and appear to be normal roads (albeit rather narrow) the same
technique could be used. Using highway=service +
designation=unclassified_highway might be a useful way to tag these.

I also like the idea of using motor_vehicle=unsuitable. If we are to
use this, it would be good to document it in the wiki. Presumably it
corresponds to "legally yes you can, but in reality you'd be advised
not to try". (If this isn't the case, then we could probably do with
another access value that does express this.)

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list