2014-10-27 15:22 GMT+01:00 Ronnie Soak <chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com>:
> It may be usable on foot if dried out over a long time or if frozen. > yes, this is a general problem with unpaved ways that usability might (depending on the actual composition and grain size) heavily depend on the weather conditions, especially humidity and temperature. > > tracktype does not offer a solution for this, as worse grades are > described as being closer to undisturbed nature, while the opposite is the > case here. > actually tracktype is not about "undisturbed nature", it is about how much the way is built up and how much not, in combination with actual smoothness / usability (i.e. it is somehow subjective). In your case it would probably be a tracktype=grade5 because otherwise the way would not have been damaged that much ;-) > > sac_scale comes to mind, but this is a track not a path and it has nothing > to do with alpine hiking. > +1, wouldn't use it > > track_visibility does also not cover this, as these tracks are if anything > MORE visible now. > +1 > > Even surface or smoothness can't describe this, as simply tagging this > bumpy and muddy does not do the situation justice. (And they are not picked > up by enough renders/routers, for which we of course do not tag.) > IMHO surface can still be useful to describe the surface and smoothness to describe the lack of smoothness. I'd go for surface=earth and tracktype=grade5 and maybe a smoothness indication (not sure what are currently suggested values, maybe very_horrible ;-) ). When the surface material is soft the unevenness might fix itself with the rain in the next months anyway. What do you mean by "unusable by foot"? Is this about getting your shoes and trousers dirty or would you have to climb "artificial cliffs"? cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
