[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: highway=unsurfaced

[Dave Stubbs]

On 01/10/2007, Rik van der Helm <rik at the-quickest.com> wrote:
> I am another non-native speaker puzzling about track, path and trail.
>
> <Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk> said:
> > >Ok, here is another problem for a non-native English speaker: I don't
> > >understand the difference between a track and a path at all. Wikipedia
> > >doesn't seem to help either, according to the page for "path", it may
> > >refer to a "track", and "track" may mean "Trail, an informal road or
> > >pathway" ("pathway" being a synonym for "path", I guess...)
> >
> > A path is a narrow pedestrian (and perhaps horse and bicycle) route
> > typically no more than about three feet across. Typically the surface is
> > soil or concrete.
>
> Is this your/osm's definition of 'path' or the linguistic definition of
> 'path' ? How do you mention an unpaved path ? Is this probably a 'trail'
> ? The dutch linquistic meaning of path (= pad) doesn't imply anything
> about the kind of surface. It can be both paved and unpaved. Our
> translation of trail i think is 'spoor'. In my eyes a 'spoor' is a path
> without or with minimal traces in the field.


In English path and track (and also trail) have significant
overlapping meanings, especially if you look them up in a dictionary.
In actual usage (in my head at least) a path is for pedestrians, a
track maybe too although you would tend to imply vehicular access for
a track, and therefore it's typically wider. Track would generally
imply unsurfaced (or badly surfaced), but path could be any surface.
To add confusion both can mean something similar to route... so being
something more logical than physical.
Also in my head is a wildness factor, which would basically order them
as path (urban), track (country, farm), trail (one with nature)...
this may well be a complete fantasy on my part... especially at the
path end.