[Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F]

On 10/03/2019 23:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
>> marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length 
>> as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
>> between adjacent fields.
>
> It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument 
> about that.
>
> But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

Specifically this, except substitute path for bridleway:
If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be 
tagged as highway=path.

>
> There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor 
> gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of 
> hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.

Then split the way up. Tag the sections accessible by vehicles as
highway=track
horse=designated
foot=designated
designation=public_bridleway
surface=*

width=* is also useful for both bridleway & track


> What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to 
> represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?

With track, it probably has to be a bit of both, Physical appearance 
should provide an indication of intended use. Unlike metalled highways, 
tracks, unfortunately, rarely have clarifying reference signs like the 
A4, M62 etc