No. While tracktype= has some issues, smoothness= is more subjective and less generally useful.
Surface= is very helpful and more objective, so it should be mentioned,but I believe it is already suggested on most of the minor highway, path and track pages. On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:24 AM brad <bradha...@fastmail.com> wrote: > Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally useful? > The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from > "To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype>=*.: > to > "To describe the quality of a track, use smoothness=* and surface=*. In > some regions tracktype is also useful." > > > > On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote: > > > There is a visibility tag. > > So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration. > > Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all that > usefull. > > I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull. > > Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand. > Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground > clearance. > Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline. > > Compaction? Not a value I'd use. > Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road that > has been compacted. > Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'. > > But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard, smooth > and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a skating ring (wet > clay). > > And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on top .. > with black goo underneath if you break through. > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
