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

Buster Christenson busterama at gmail.com
Thu Feb 25 22:25:36 UTC 2021


I use track for any highway that is less than two vehicle widths across in
a non-urban setting.

It could be paved, graded or just barely scratched into the surface of the
desert by a set of two wheel tracks spaced one automobile width apart.

Everything else about whether a highway is 4x4, offroad, surface type or
smoothness, grade, operator, etc... I leave to the additional attributes I
can use to describe the track or other highway.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 4:59 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."
>
> 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".
>
> In a recent Slack discussion[2], mappers shared their perspective on
> how they use highway=track:
>
> "I always use track for public, unmaintained highways and usually use
> track for discontinued roads. My thought is that if it used to be a
> road, and snowmobiles and ATVs can still use it, then track works
> (with access=permissive if applicable)" -aweech, New Hampshire
>
> "I use highway=path for trails that were formerly cut as forestry
> tracks (wide between trees), but are now only beaten in a single-track
> due to exclusively non-motorized usage." -adamfranco, Vermont
>
> "I use it for any rough, unmaintained looking track" -Zeke Farwell, Vermont
>
> "I use track for any road that would be irresponsible to route over
> because it might wreck a car, or isn’t cleared of snow, tree, or flood
> debris, or only used during some seasons.. the “purpose” of the road
> doesn’t matter to me." -bhousel, New Jersey
>
> "I don't think forestry and agriculture are bad reasons for a road to
> be a track, and that does indeed match the definition of a lot of
> tracks in Colorado. If it were expanded to include the fact that this
> use might be historical, and then add mining and other natural
> resource management, and unmanaged recreation, then you'd cover almost
> all of what we call tracks in the US" -phidauex, Colorado
>
> It appears that the US usage of highway=track follows more closely to
> the definition from the TIGER import, which is based on physical
> characteristics, rather than the wiki definition, which is based on
> usage.
>
> US mappers: how do you apply highway=track in the US?
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=track
> [2] https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1613754200382000
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Thank You,

  Buster
  602-492-6844
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20210225/9e351763/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list