[Talk-us] Usage of highway=track in the United States
Kevin Kenny
kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Thu Feb 25 14:30:21 UTC 2021
>
>
> On 25.02.21 13:18, Simon Poole wrote:
> > highway=road is a left over from the really old days of OSM before we
> > had aerial imagery and the likes and IMHO should in general not be used
> > at all any more. It is a far better approach to guess a (low)
> > classification than to use "road". Very definitely if you are in the
> > position to determine a surface value you are in the position to set an
> > appropriate proper highway value.
>
Exactly. It's unrenderable, unroutable, might as well not be there. It's a
similar answer to "don't map it."
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 7:53 AM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> It is a discussion worth having. Frankly, I find the idea of erring on
> the side of caution has something to it: "I can see there is a road here
> but I am 5000 miles away and hence I have zero clue if this road is
> available to the general public so I won't claim that it is" - it's not
> the silliest idea.
>
Oh, please.
I'm talking about roads where I've had my personal boots on the personal
ground. I've simply not hiked them all the way to the end, possibly because
there's some point beyond which I may not go, but more likely simply
because I was using them as approach trails to something else. I don't
appreciate the answer that I can't map the portion that I've actually used
because I don't know the ultimate destination of the part I haven't used.
Around here, for the 'unimproved' roads, the ultimate destination is the
ONLY observable difference among track, service (with or without
service=driveway), residential (motor_vehicle=private) and unclassified
(motor_vehicle=private). If a leaseholder builds a cabin or a boat launch,
suddenly without anything happening to the road, it changes from track to
service, according to the definitions. If there's a leaseholder that builds
another cabin, now that's a private residential road. If it happens to
connect to the road network at both ends, but I haven't learnt that because
I haven't hiked the whole thing, and it has the two cabins, now it's
unclassified? Distinction upon distinction, without a difference that I
can observe from the few km that I've mapped.
I happen to know that a lot of them are snowmobile=yes because there's an
extensive network of public snowmobile trails. That designation doesn't
give anyone the right to drive or ride an ATV on them when there isn't
snow. The gates are opened when the snow comes. I typically learn
'foot=yes' or 'foot=permissive' from one of the local hiking clubs - they
have people who know. Anything that's 'foot=yes', not cleared in the
winter, and not posted for snowmobiles is also usually 'ski-yes,'
Tagging something as "highway=track" without further details will be
> interpreted by almost anyone as "being available to the public".
>
Assume that I'm mapping the portion I've used and have added access tags
that comport with what I've observed, for instance `motor_vehicle=private`
if the road is gated but the tire tracks clearly continue beyond the gate.
Assume that I've also tagged surface, smoothness and tracktype.
As someone who is part of the team that receives complaints from land
> owners, park managers and the like, I wonder if we as a project need to
> start exercising more caution when we carelessly claim that any track we
> spot on aerial imagery is usable for the general public.
>
I'm on good terms with the forest rangers; on a first-name basis with some
of them. Some of the GIS people in the conservation department see OSM as a
resource because often our map is better than theirs. Since off-trail
hiking is formally allowed on most of the state-owned land, I tend to mark
formally closed trails that are still followable as 'foot=discouraged' and
The Powers That Be are actually pretty cool with that. When I produce
printed maps, one of the marginal notes is, "Unmarked trails and woods
roads indicated on this map may be obscure and difficult to follow, even
for experienced hikers."
Assume that I've done my homework to this extent. I know access
constraints, surface, smoothness, incline and tracktype because I've been
there and seen them. The only thing I haven't done, and possibly cannot do,
is to follow the road all the way to the end to see where it goes. How can
I choose a useful `highway=*` that conforms with your rules? If the answer
remains 'it can't be anything that can be rendered or routed, even for the
permitted access modes', that's farther off into the weeds than I usually
hike.
For what it's worth, at present I use 'track' for these, because that's the
least likely designation to cause false expectations. And I don't worry too
much about upgrading to 'service', 'residential' or 'unclassified' when the
change will not imply anything about the characteristics of the road
itself. The road doesn't suddenly improve because some leaseholder builds
something, or suddenly deteriorate when a lease reverts to the state.
This isn't the first time you've told me that I'm wrong for doing that. You
have yet to offer a better suggestion.
Your turn.
--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20210225/c34bf67a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-us
mailing list