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

[Jmapb]

On 2/24/2021 2:35 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:

>     3) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/849614298 (just down the
>     hill) is a
>     abandoned/disused section of formerly residential road, physically
>     blocked at both ends but passable by foot. It was once two lanes,
>     but is
>     so overgrown that the usable width is less than a full lane in some
>     spots. A fair amount of the old asphalt is still visible, and
>     physically
>     it would (if the barriers were removed) be driveable by most
>     not-overly-large vehicles with decent clearance.
>
>     Neither highway=residential nor highway=service seemed
>     appropriate, so I
>     settled on highway=track here as well.
>
> I tagged exact feature like that as highway=footway...

IMO it's a matter of the extent of the decay. If I'd tagged it the day
the barriers were erected, I'd've been torn between leaving it as
highway=residential (+ access=no foot=yes) or changing to
highway=pedestrian --  because physically it still could have functioned
as a road.  Now, some years later, it's no longer suitable as a road,
but physically many vehicles could still drive on it. I'd guess it's
about 5 to 10 years away from being a footway or path.

A related question worth considering: If the map says I'm looking for a
footway, but what I see is an overgrown road, how do I know that I'm at
the right place? surface=overgrown_asphalt? I feel the ambiguity of
highway=track is actually an advantage here.

> access=no
> foot=yes
> highway=track
>
> just makes it harder to recognize as something walkable without cars.

Definitely true for anyone casually browsing the map. I know we
shouldn't tag for the renderer, but it's tempting to go with
motor_vehicle=no instead of access=no, especially if I could nail down
what to put for bicycle. (And of course I also concede the temptation to
tag it as a path or footway since I'm convinced that it's heading that
direction inexorably.)


> Do you remember where it was blocked?
>
> access=private
> foot=yes
>
> is tagged already, but it may be useful to convey that physical access,
> not only legal one, is restricted.
>
> So tagging at least one of that blockades would be useful.

I didn't get the impression these were permanent blockages, just
evidence of extremely minimal maintenance. I doubt the track would still
be blocked in the same locations. Maybe something like
smoothness=horrible would help get the idea across.


Jason

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20210227/c1165a28/attachment.htm>