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

Kun Attila attil2000 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 00:29:35 UTC 2021


Well, I doubt this is a good usage of highway=track. If it's paved but it's width is less than a normal road (in europe it's 6 meters so 2x3 meters), and doesn't have any markings, it is marked as a service road, but not a track.

Feb 25, 2021 23:36:17 Buster Christenson <busterama at gmail.com>:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20210226/dd33afbe/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list