[Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Eric Ladner]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:59 AM Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:

>
> "Richie Kennedy" <richiekennedy56 at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > To me, "unpaved" includes gravel surfaced roads (which is the
> > predominant surface type of non-state highways in rural Kansas). I'm
> > not inclined to mark every gravel road in Kansas as 'track'
>
> Unpaved does not at all imply track.  If it's a real road, open to the
> public, with a name, and expected to be used by normal vehicles, it's
> not a track.  track is about something that is physically less than a
> proper (even unpaved) road.
>
> It's perfectly reasonable to have an unpaved highway=secondary in
> rural areas, if that's one of the major roads around.
>
>

Agree. The OSM definintion of "track" is clear on this - "represents roads
for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc" and "Do not use tracks to
represent public unpaved roads in built-up areas". If it's an open road
with some kind of designation, then it's some level of highway, not a
track. Using a surface=* tag is crucial here.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150923/36962a4a/attachment.html>