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

brad bradhaack at fastmail.com
Fri Feb 26 18:34:42 UTC 2021 

Overall, I think the changes recently made to the wiki track page are 
great.  I have 2 points:

I'm not sure this bullet point is justified?   This seems to broad & I 
don't see many arguing for it's use for 'any unpaved minor road'.

  * For any unpaved minor road, regardless of usage or purpose,
    including residential roads and service roads.^[1]
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack#cite_note-1>
    However, community discussions suggest that most mappers consider
    this usage overly broad and possibly tagging for the renderer
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer>. The
    tag surface <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface>=* is
    recommended instead.


Since an unmaintained road is often appropriately tagged as a track, I 
would suggest changing this text from this:

  * For /unmaintained/, disused or abandoned roads.^[3]
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dtrack&type=revision&diff=2118226&oldid=2118089#cite_note-3>
    See disused:highway
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused>=* and
    abandoned:highway
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned>=* as alternatives.

To this:

  * For disused or abandoned roads.^[3]
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dtrack&type=revision&diff=2118226&oldid=2118089#cite_note-3>
    See disused:highway
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused>=* and
    abandoned:highway
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned>=* as alternatives.



On 2/22/21 8:38 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies.  This was very helpful in 
> shaping the community understanding of how we're using this tag in the 
> US.
>
> Based on this discussion, I've written up the following section on the 
> wiki:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack#Usage_in_the_United_States
>
> Hopefully I've accurately captured our discussion here, even if it 
> does make things a bit muddy from a global perspective.  Feel free to 
> revise this if you think I've gotten anything wrong!
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:53 PM Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org 
> <mailto:m at rtijn.org>> wrote:
>
>     Brian,
>
>     Thanks for collecting these insights. I wouldn't call its usage
>     controversial based on the mere fact that there is a range of
>     interpretations of its usage--that would render a good number of
>     tags in OSM controversial.
>
>     The bigger issue here is what is actually on the wiki. Right now,
>     discussions about US road tagging feed on a set of alternative
>     truths on there, which is not productive and makes for recurring
>     discussions on the same topics without a satisfying conclusion.
>
>     A quite non-exhaustive list of pages with redundant / conflicting
>     information:
>
>       * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Road_classification
>       * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Roadway_Classification_Guidelines
>       * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
>       * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence
>       * The international equivalent sections of the common road
>         classes, like
>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence
>       * Various state page's sections on highway tagging, such as
>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/West_Virginia#Functional_Classification,
>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Jersey#Classifications,
>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)#Highway_Classification,
>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indiana#Highway_Classifications,
>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Florida#Tagging_ideas_for_Florida
>         (there are likely many more)
>
>     This is not saying you're wrong to raise it, not at all. I'm just
>     pointing out a root cause in the hopes that we can start working
>     on fixing the bigger issue. This is a big pile of work but with
>     big reward as well.
>
>     Martijn
>
>     On 2/19/2021 4:56 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano 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  <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210226/8a39089b/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list