The dictionary doesn't help much: track: "a path <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/path> or rough <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rough> road <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/road> that is made of soil <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/soil> rather <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rather> than having a surface <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/surface> covered <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cover> with stone <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/stone> or other material <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/material>"
path: a route or track between one place and another, or the direction in which something is moving: a garden path a concrete path a well-trodden path This is the path to the cliffs. It will be several days before snowploughs clear a path (through) to the village. They followed the path until they came to a gate. So this https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.9940387923&lng=4.707510424794445&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=pV1y2lcTNq-jB7xvJNONTQ cannot be a track. It must be a path. Best, Peter Elderson Op wo 10 jun. 2020 om 00:13 schreef Tod Fitch <t...@fitchfamily.org>: > > > On Jun 9, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad <bradha...@fastmail.com> wrote: > >> A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, >> a path can't. >> > Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for agriculture > or forestry. > > A wide path on the other hand has the same function as a narrow path. > > >> If functional is sacrosanct, why do we have motorway? A motorway could >> just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access. >> > That is a good question. But it was stated on this list just a couple of > weeks ago that the highway=* tag was a functional classification, "except > for motorway".... > > > In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and > their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I > want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor > the renderer. > > On the motor vehicle side this would be the equivalent of saying all ways > intended for cars should be mapped as highway=road and we can distinguish > them by using surface, width, smoothness, maximum speed, etc. > > I think we need some more values for the highway tag that would allow a > mapper to easily tag: > > 1) A narrow rural trail where you probably want good footwear and are > likely to take a small pack with water, snacks, etc. > 2) A smooth hard surfaced walk, usually in or near urban/suburban areas) > suitable for pushing a stroller. > 3) A wide fairly smooth way (usually in or near urban/suburban areas) > designed for getting exercise. Probably not paved, but with a natural > appearing surface that is maintained to be fairly smooth. > > In my part of the world many of those things are general purpose (mixed > foot and bicycle use and often horses). Mappers end up using highway tag > values of path, footway, track, and, rarely, cycleway or bridlepath. If we > are lucky they might put a surface tag or some access tags on it. It is a > mess. Hard for a beginning mapper to decide what tags to use. Hard for a > data consumer to figure out what the mapper was trying to map. > > The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track > if it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same > physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is > currently used for hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the > other side. > > That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on if > it goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how can > I map it? > > First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that > look exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag > a way that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a > track regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway. > Maybe it is being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it > accesses a field. Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t > decayed or been overgrown into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a > track. Saying that the way “isn’t for forestry or agricultural use” so it > can’t be a track is worthless: Real world mappers have voted otherwise with > their tagging. > > Cheers! > Tod > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
