[OSM-talk] Few questions on highway=track

Freek freek_osm at vanwal.nl
Tue Aug 7 09:21:32 BST 2007

On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> Freek wrote:
> > > At the moment "track" is generally used for an unpaved route that is
> > > accessible by motor vehicle (but not necessarily a car).
> >
> > That's where I'm using it for, roughly (I actually use it for /all/ roads
> > that fit your description, including ones that have a name-sign and up to
> > two farms along it), but it appears to contradict partially with the
> > interpretations other mappers use, like David wrote:
> Hmm.  Sidetracking this a bit, most maps of Australia use the convention
> of dashed lines for unpaved roads and solid lines for bitumen.

Something like this?
Appears to be picked up pretty quickly (see Mike Collinson's post) :-)

> This has 
> the advantage that major/minor routes can be distinguished - e.g. major
> unsealed routes crossing the interior of the country vs minor access
> roads for communities and homesteads.  This would correspond to using
> surface= in OSM nomenclature, I suppose - then raising once again the
> question of when you'd use [highway=unclassified surface=unpaved] vs
> when you'd use [highway=track].

I think this way of rendering (like above) for surface=unpaved in combination 
with Jon Bright's choice of tagging would be quite usable in practice.


More information about the talk mailing list