On 26/03/2010 14:26, Xan wrote: > En/na Dirk-Lüder Kreie ha escrit: >> In Europe those are mostly tracks (wide enough for a 2-tracked vehicle >> to pass through) and the "importance" can be read off of the >> grade/tracktype. >> for paths (only wide enough for walking or a horse/bicycle/motorcycle >> etc) you can also use the physical features. >> IMO this gives a much better picture about the tracks and paths in a >> forest. And the "importance" is almost directly mappable to the physical >> features, i.e. an important path or track is much better maintained, and >> usualla also better equipped (maybe even paved), or at least wider as a >> less important counterpart. >> > In the wiki page of path > [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath], there is a > comment abput that it's enough wide for 4-tracked vehicle to pass > throught and not legally impeded, then it's track. You mention > 2-tracked. What is the real?
I think this just a question of confusing terminology. That wiki page says a "4-wheeled" vehicle. A 4 wheeled vehicle has 2 tracks (usually), as the front 2 wheels and rear 2 wheels are lined up with each other. So on soft ground it will create 2 obvious ruts. eg like the photo here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg So I would say that photo is of a highway=track, not highway=path. Or also see "singletrack" in mountain biking terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_track_%28mountain_biking%29 That refers to a path wide enough to fit a bike along, but its too narrow for a 4 wheeled vehicle. Craig _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
