Whilst I fully accept the concept of open debate in an attempt to reach a consensus, I do find the current discussion less than helpful, because of the range of definitions being thrown out, and the added geographic dimension to the definitions. This is not helped by the variety in advise in the instructions for various tasks - ranging from "if in doubt mark it as a path, and this can be upgraded by someone on the ground" to much more specific instructions in the Nepalese instructions, for example. But the type of terrain in which one might contemplate a 4 wheel drive in Africa is very different to that regularly used in Nepal.
Surely if must be possible to come to a conclusion for a generic set of definitions. I rather support John Whelan's breakdown, where he suggests that "if its to a small group of huts its probably a track, if its to narrow for a 4X4 and winds its a path, and if I can see two wheel tracks then its a track unless its between two settlements of reasonable size then its unclassified " . There was a huge correspondence in a similar vein during the early days of the Nepal disaster, which I found to be a real disincentive to contributing during the first couple of weeks, and I have only latterly started working on task. There has also been an impressive and important Post Mortem exercise to improve things, and I would suggest that the size of the preset list is one area in which some serious pruning could be done with consequent increase in transparency to a new comer Andrew -- Andrew Patterson The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and intended for the addressee only.
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
