[Talk-us] Usage of highway=track in the United States

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 07:29:54 UTC 2021 

I note there is no mention of the tracktype tag, which I always use with
highway=track (mapping in Europe)

I notice kangaroos in one of the sample photos from Zeke Farwell, but
otherwise they look exactly the same as my typical highway=track in Europe.
I would have added tracktypes grade2 to grade4 to them

Volker
Padova, Italy


On Sat, 20 Feb 2021, 04:26 , <talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
>         talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         talk-us-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Usage of highway=track in the United States (stevea)
>    2. Re: Usage of highway=track in the United States (Tod Fitch)
>    3. Re: Usage of highway=track in the United States (Clifford Snow)
>    4. Re: Usage of highway=track in the United States (brad)
>    5. Re: Usage of highway=track in the United States (Zeke Farwell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:07:28 -0800
> From: stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Usage of highway=track in the United States
> Message-ID: <81B831CF-BFAA-4F32-9330-90275020D915 at softworkers.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> For tens of thousands of edits, including what must be thousands of
> highway=track tags I have added to brand new ways (and TIGER ways which I
> discover are NOT TIGER's default of highway=residential, implying pavement,
> but are clearly by imagery unpaved, rural and more often than not, fully
> devoid of houses / residences), highway=track means to me:
>
> • a "dirt road" (first and foremost, as in unpaved, or perhaps gravel),
> whether a public right-of-way (sometimes) or on private land (far more
> common in my experience),
>
> • a "double-track" unpaved highway (as opposed to "single-track," how a
> mountain biker might distinguish, I tag those highway=path),
>
> • usually, almost always "rural" (quite far away from conurbations /
> cities, even towns, villages or hamlets, though there ARE such things
> around these, which I'm much more likely to tag highway=residential +
> surface=unpaved if there are residences along them),
>
> • "agricultural tracks" in areas of agriculture and forestry, which here
> are "most of them."  Although as I mention, on somewhat rare occasion,
> especially rural areas will have "dirt roads" that might be called
> highway=unclassified + surface=unpaved, but I (somewhat lazily?) tag these
> highway=track instead.  If one of these unpaved roads is identifiably
> residential (or even tertiary, due to wide-area access and / or traffic
> amounts) — these are all very rural and / or mountainous and of difficult,
> uncommon access unless you live there or are making a delivery — I'll use
> highway=residential or highway=tertiary with surface=unpaved to distinctly
> note this.  But I've noticed I don't seem to do this with
> highway=unclassified (+ surface=unpaved), even though I probably should.
>
> I do NOT use highway=track on a private driveway, believing that an
> unpaved driveway (there are many, but not common) is best tagged with
> highway=service + service=driveway + surface=unpaved (or dirt, or
> gravel...) + access=private or access=destination.  I don't always add
> access tags, as I don't always know them, but if I DO know them I add
> them.  If there is a barrier=gate (visible in imagery or in my personal
> experience), I'll add that tag to a node on the driveway, usually quite
> close to its "host" or "parent" road (the road the driveway "roots" to).
>
> I should probably add surface=unpaved to highway=track more often than I
> do, as I believe highway=track strongly implies (or actually "means")
> unpaved.  But I do (some of the time, not usually or often) add a
> tracktype=gradeN tag, with N=1 (ALMOST so smoothly compacted "unpaved" that
> it approaches the usability of a paved road:  higher speeds on a
> straightaway up to maybe 45 MPH / 70 km/h, no need for the added safety of
> a high-clearance or a 4WD vehicle on a road like that...) down to N=5,
> where a "double-track" (of parallel tire tracks) is so faint upon the land
> that it is almost invisible (but isn't).  Our tracktype wiki offers good
> photos for fairly easy-to-identify grades to assign for these five values,
> this isn't difficult.
>
> I should note that in 2021 in the USA, "most" roads that "most" people
> encounter (around here, in my experience, YMMV...) are surface=paved.
> Gravel or dirt roads are certainly found, but they are less and less
> common.  I do make it a point to identify them, either with a highway=track
> tag (again, implies not paved), or an explicit surface=* tag if I know the
> surface.
>
> These have evolved over my dozen years of editing in OSM in approximately
> the order given:  I've gotten more likely in the last few years to add
> additional tags (at first tracktype, now with better surface=* and even
> sometimes smoothness=* tags).  Me joining OSM fairly soon after the TIGER
> import in the mid-2000s has affected this, but those more-long-ago habits
> have been supplanted by better tagging (tracktype, surface, smoothness...)
> more recently, up to today and into the future.
>
> I hope this helps,
> SteveA
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:13:57 -0800
> From: Tod Fitch <tod at fitchfamily.org>
> To: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> Cc: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Usage of highway=track in the United States
> Message-ID: <7B627173-5658-4A58-91CB-924CAA77974B at fitchfamily.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> tl;dr - I hope that a general purpose router will not route over a way
> tagged as “highway=track”. None of those in my area are suitable and/or
> legal for use in a standard motor vehicle.
>
> Long version - In my little part of the world, tracks are most often for
> either farm/ranch access. Or they were when they were created. If they are
> still being used for farm/ranch access they are almost certainly
> “access=private”.
>
> There are a number of local “wilderness parks” owned and managed by the
> county that were once private ranch land. Many of the tracks in those areas
> have been re-purposed for hiking, mountain biking and equestrian use. In
> this case, they might be maintained enough for the agency managing the park
> (or emergency responders) to access with four wheel drive pickup trucks. I
> can’t think of any of them that allow public motor vehicle access though.
> For what it is worth, I map these as something like:
>
> highway=track
> surface=unpaved
> motor_vehicle=no
> horse=yes
> bicycle=yes
> foot=yes
> dogs=leashed | no
>
> With the various *=yes tags based on local signage, etc.
>
> I am not an off-highway vehicle person so the track type rating is
> something I am not comfortable tagging, and since most of these do not
> allow motor vehicles I guess that is moot.
>
> In any case, my presumption is that if it is a track then it is very
> likely not available for public motor vehicle use.
>
> If the track has not been maintained well enough for a motor vehicle then
> I will change the above tagging to be “highway=path” (they are
> multipurpose). And, on rare occasions, will also add
> “abandoned:highway=track” in addition to the current “highway=path”.
> Generally, I only use the lifecycle tagging if there is an isolated section
> of the way that hasn’t been overgrown into being a narrow trail. This is
> mostly to avoid armchair mappers “upgrading” it to a track based on aerial
> imagery.
>
> There are exceptions to tracks being private or restricted on vehicle
> access: The US Forest Service has a number of “roads” that are, on the
> ground, indistinguishable from a private farm or ranch track in width,
> condition, etc. These are open to motor vehicles with sufficient ground
> clearance. They are almost certainly signed on the ground and shown on the
> public domain Forest Service recreation maps. There are also unpaved roads
> in the desert or in the mountains which are passible with a normal
> passenger vehicle, these are wider and generally graded periodically. I tag
> those as either “highway=service” or “highway=unclassified” as seems
> appropriate when I survey the area.
>
> Cheers!
>
> > On Feb 19, 2021, at 4:30 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2/20/21 00:56, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> >> US mappers: how do you apply highway=track in the US?
> >
> > If I may add a question: If you use highway=track what kind of access do
> > you think is implied? Would it generally be safe to assume that I can
> > drive along a highway=track with my Jeep if highway=track is all that
> > OpenStreetMap tells me, or should I look for an explicit access=yes or
> > motor_vehicle=yes before I do?
> >
> > Asking with DWG work in mind, where we often get complaints like "your
> > map shows a private track trough my property pls delete immediately or
> > else". Then we usually offer to add access=private. But sometimes I
> > wonder, is it perhaps more likely for a random highway=track to be
> > private? Should that maybe even be the default?
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20210219/da25feb6/attachment-0001.sig
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:31:51 -0800
> From: Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
> To: "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
> Cc: talk-us <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Usage of highway=track in the United States
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CADAoPLqEZ1J3HGiyJatrM48USpcLGZOAgULU5Tvm1nnHqEUTyA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:57 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > The usage of the tag highway=track is controversial.  Through
> > discussion with both US-based and foreign mappers, it is apparent that
> > this tag is used differently in the US than it is in the rest of the
> > world.  Further, the usage in the US appears to be different from how
> > it is documented on the OSM wiki[1].
> >
> > The wiki description is "roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks
> > etc."
> >
>
> Around me highway=track is usually associated with some logging roads
> located in the mountains. But not exclusively. Some logging roads are added
> as unclassified. While they mostly serve as roads for logging trucks they
> have other uses. Most of the logging roads have a metal gate blocking
> access although only a few have been mapped. The companies logging in the
> area put up gates to protect their forests. Some farms the roads to the
> fields are tagged as service and others as track. For agriculture use I
> could go either way.
>
> For a while people were showing logging roads as service since their
> purpose was to pull logs out of the forest. I haven't seen much of that
> recently.
>
> >
> > In the US, the 2007 TIGER import assigned highway=track to CFCC code
> > A51, which is described as "Vehicular trail, road passable only by 4WD
> > vehicle, unseparated".
> >
>
> Apparently around me Census never got the memo. They added logging roads as
> residential. My county has been pretty much cleaned up but there is much
> more to be done.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20210219/22ba5c59/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 20:19:45 -0700
> From: brad <bradhaack at fastmail.com>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Usage of highway=track in the United States
> Message-ID: <3ea3636e-bdb5-c158-7d79-d5f1f7131e2a at fastmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> I use track if its a very rugged road.   In addition to farming and
> ranching roads, in the west there are many roads created for mining or
> logging that are mostly used for recreation now.   Some could be driven
> with a high clearance auto, but more often you need a 4wd vehicle or a
> motorcycle.    If I've been there I always add a smoothness tag because
> that is the best tag to distinguish between a high clearance road, a 4wd
> road, and a road that any car could drive on.   The names of the
> smoothness tags are unfortunate, but the descriptions are good enough.
> If it's a good enuf for a car and it goes far enough to connect to
> another road, it probably qualifies for at least a highway=unclassified
> tag.
>
> A router should never route on a track unless it's explicitly routing
> for an adventure.
>
> I think it's implied that it is public unless stated otherwise,  but
> there are many tracks that have been imported that are not properly
> tagged.   This is from my point of view, in Colorado, where there is a
> lot of public land.   This may be different in farming country. Even
> here, if it's a relatively short track that doesn't go anywhere and it
> is not clearly on public land, there is a good chance it is private.
>
> Someone mentioned that we use the tags differently than the rest of the
> world.  I don't think that is correct as we have had several comments on
> the tagging list from Australians who use the tag similarly to how we
> use it.
>
> Brad
>
> On 2/19/21 4:56 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> > US mappers: how do you apply highway=track in the US?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:23:51 -0500
> From: Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com>
> To: talk-us <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Usage of highway=track in the United States
> Message-ID:
>         <CAH-nfWNJN16m8OAxj83LZuLp3x41iKxrf=
> ZEqbYjBjLrUMTBsg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Here are some images I've collected of the type of thing I generally tag as
> highway=track:  https://ibb.co/album/N976VK
>
> Basically rural routes used by some vehicles, but where maintenance is
> minimal or non-existent, and 4 wheel drive may be a good idea or even a
> requirement for not getting stuck.  A few are well maintained enough that
> they might serve as a driveway in a rural area.  In that case I might go
> with highway=service, surface=unpaved instead.
>
> It doesn't seem to me that any legal access information can be implied by
> highway=track.  Some are public.  Some are private.
>
> --
> Zeke
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20210219/4b423e8c/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 159, Issue 10
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20210220/a8d96fbd/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list