Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Volker Schmidt]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 19:41, Tod Fitch  wrote:


> For example, as mappers discover they can map a voie verte in France or a
> “Rails to Trails” in the USA as highway=greenway and not as arbitrary
> choice of track, path, cycleway or bridle path differentiated by a bunch of
> foot=designated, bicycle=designated, etc. tags they are likely to migrate
> to the simpler tagging. At some time in the future data consumers could
> begin to be more restrictive on their logic.
>

You mention the "greenways".
I know of some "things" that are labeled as "greenways". The ones I know
are certainly not "things" that are anything even remoty like types of
highways in the OSM sense..
Also the  Greenway Wikipedia article
  points in the
opposite direction. A greenway is a corridor that can be used for different
types of routes or even not be used for any kind of route. The "greenway"
label is often used to describe routes in the wider sense. I know a number
of examples that
I know a number of "greenways" carrying cycle routes that include not only
the actual highways that make up the cycle routes, but also refer to
ancillary services and features. A famous example:
https://www.avenuevertelondonparis.co.uk/. The Eurovelo network is made up
of cycle routes that contain all kinds of highways. The Rails to Trails in
the US is even more fragmented.
(I know some parts of some greenways directly as a cycle tourist).
In short words: the greenway concept is orthogonal to the highway type
concept, and, in addition, very broad - "greenway" is not a highway type.

Re: Via ferrata.
highway=wia_ferrata is different. It's an existing tag for waya, together
with the key via_ferrata_scale=* .
I guse, but have not checked that the best use would be on relations, as a
via ferrata normally is composed of pieces of diefferrent difficulty, but
that can be resolved.


Volker
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Alan Mackie]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 04:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:10, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think anyone is saying that tracks can't have additional uses,
>>> just that one of those uses has to be forestry, agriculture (and maybe
>>> mineral extraction/energy).
>>>
>>
>> They HAVE to have one of those uses?  Really?  No exceptions.
>>
>
> Sorry, I could probably worded that better, but a number of our tracks
> follow power line / gas pipeline easements, but are open to the public to
> use.
>
> Others branch off from a road, through the bush down to a fishing /
> swimming spot on the creek / river / dam.
>
> Others cross through private property, but are an accepted way to get from
> here to there, & are in some cases even named, despite being 4wd only &
> track type 3 - 5!
>
> I suppose "farm" tracks that go around the various paddocks on a property
> could be called agricultural, but they are usually just a means of getting
> to those areas, & are frequently open to the public on a "permissive" basis.
>
> So I'm sorry, but I have to emphasise that all tracks are not for forestry
> or agricultural use only.
>
> +10

I grew up in an area with little to no agriculture and where the logging
dried up decades ago, but it still has tracks. They aren't just leftovers.

FWIW my go-to online dictionary defines [1] a track as:

> 1. A rough path or road, typically one beaten by use rather than
> constructed.
> *‘follow the track to the farm’*
> 1.1  A prepared course or circuit for athletes, horses, motor vehicles,
> bicycles, or dogs to race on.
> *‘a Formula One Grand Prix track’*
>
-
>
> 1.2  mass noun The sport of running on a track.
> *‘the four running disciplines of track, road, country, and fell’*
>

(Before quickly diverging into entirely non-transport related items)

As they claim to be "powered by Oxford" and giving a UK dictionary I think
it's fair to say this definition is for British English.

I really don't understand the OSM community's fondness for elevating
agriculture and forestry above all else for this tag, but if we want to
exclude things that are clearly tracks from our highway=track definition,
please suggest an alternate road classification we can use for:
Ways for two track vehicles that

   1. tend to go around rather than through obstacles
   2. are minimally improved as the need arises
   3. aren't proper service roads
   4. don't form a proper part of the road network
   5. in many cases you'd be wary of using for low clearance vehicles.

 I think most people would take one look at them and say "that's a track",
and barring evidence that would lead to 'service=driveway', I would tend to
agree.

Remember that in much of the world we haven't been maintaining these ways
for the last thousand years as countries have risen and fallen and haven't
yet fully integrated every possible route into the proper road network. I
do not want to find myself in a situation where the average router tries to
send me down vastly inferior ways because OSM refuses to call these what
they are.


[1]: https://www.lexico.com/definition/track
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:10, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone is saying that tracks can't have additional uses,
>> just that one of those uses has to be forestry, agriculture (and maybe
>> mineral extraction/energy).
>>
>
> They HAVE to have one of those uses?  Really?  No exceptions.
>

Sorry, I could probably worded that better, but a number of our tracks
follow power line / gas pipeline easements, but are open to the public to
use.

Others branch off from a road, through the bush down to a fishing /
swimming spot on the creek / river / dam.

Others cross through private property, but are an accepted way to get from
here to there, & are in some cases even named, despite being 4wd only &
track type 3 - 5!

I suppose "farm" tracks that go around the various paddocks on a property
could be called agricultural, but they are usually just a means of getting
to those areas, & are frequently open to the public on a "permissive" basis.

So I'm sorry, but I have to emphasise that all tracks are not for forestry
or agricultural use only.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:10, Mike Thompson  wrote:

> I don't think anyone is saying that tracks can't have additional uses,
> just that one of those uses has to be forestry, agriculture (and maybe
> mineral extraction/energy).
>

They HAVE to have one of those uses?  Really?  No exceptions.

Back in my pre-OSM days, I rather naively assumed a track was a way that was
not a public route and which had ruts left by the vehicles that used it.
As in
the vehicles left tracks in the ground.  Obviously, I'm far more confused
now and have no idea what anything means any more.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:53 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>  here in Oz, "tracks" are almost always unpaved (grass or dirt / rock
surface) &
I think that is true in the US as well, but not everything that is wide
enough, and otherwise suited, for a 2-track vehicle and is unpaved is a
highway=track.

>they are frequently open for public recreational use by vehicle, not
"reserved for forestry or agricultural use"
I don't think anyone is saying that tracks can't have additional uses, just
that one of those uses has to be forestry, agriculture (and maybe mineral
extraction/energy).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I agree that in countries with large areas of lightly-developed land, like
Australia, Canada, USA, there may be highway=track features which were
never used for agriculture or forestry, but were originally designed for
4x4 or off-road recreational vehicles. These might be called "jeep tracks"
or "4x4 trails" or similar. In the USA they will almost always be found on
publicly-owned land which is only lightly protected, or designated for
recreational use. In contrast to highway=footway or highway=path features,
these recreational highway=track features are always wide enough for
2-tracked motor vehicles and motor vehicle traffic was the primary use
case, at least originally (though in some cases the legal access may have
changed).

Many highway=track features which are now used primarily for recreation
were originally "fire roads" (used for forestry or maintenance of
rangeland) or meant to access low-intensity grazing lands, or originally
built for forestry purposes.

Note that this line was recently added to the wiki page Tag:highway=track
for clarity:

"Some highway =track are
used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV
trails."

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:53 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 05:47, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>>
>> “Greenway” [1] was a term unknown to me too
>>
>
> I only found out when I looked at the link you provided that we have
> "foreshoreways", & one most prominently mentioned is only about 2k from
> where I live!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenway_(landscape)#Foreshoreway
>
> But back on topic (& you're probably all getting bored with us continually
> saying it!), but here in Oz, "tracks" are almost always unpaved (grass or
> dirt / rock surface) & they are frequently open for public recreational use
> by vehicle, not "reserved for forestry or agricultural use"
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 05:47, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> “Greenway” [1] was a term unknown to me too
>

I only found out when I looked at the link you provided that we have
"foreshoreways", & one most prominently mentioned is only about 2k from
where I live!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenway_(landscape)#Foreshoreway

But back on topic (& you're probably all getting bored with us continually
saying it!), but here in Oz, "tracks" are almost always unpaved (grass or
dirt / rock surface) & they are frequently open for public recreational use
by vehicle, not "reserved for forestry or agricultural use"

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 13:40, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> My hope would be that addition of more highway=* values that better match 
> what people are trying to map would be a short term pain (data consumers need 
> to add one more check) but long term benefit.
>
> For example, as mappers discover they can map a voie verte in France or a 
> “Rails to Trails” in the USA as highway=greenway and not as arbitrary choice 
> of track, path, cycleway or bridle path differentiated by a bunch of 
> foot=designated, bicycle=designated, etc. tags they are likely to migrate to 
> the simpler tagging. At some time in the future data consumers could begin to 
> be more restrictive on their logic.

I'd support more highway=* values, but a "greenway" doesn't seem like
the best start to me.

A "rail trail" as I'm familiar with it in Ontario seems an actually
fairly good use of highway=path - a multi-purpose, multi-user way that
usually doesn't allow two-tracked vehicles that need road
registration. (ATVs might be okay but their legal status is often
unclear and enforcement is uneven.)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rail_trail_(17207255008).jpg
is probably a typical look, it seems to be
https://osm.org/way/56156607

Or am I misunderstanding? What in your mind would be the difference
between highway=greenway and highway=path?

I can accept that a "greenway" would be different from a "dangerous
path a non-advanced hiker can die on", but I would suggest to start by
splitting out the latter. (As done for example with via ferrata.)

And regarding other path types: what highway= tag would you suggest
for https://osm.org/way/236153221 (photo in linked Wikipedia article)?
To me, a "hiking trail" would be the closest description, but I'm not
experienced with scene lingo nor do I know what it would be in British
English.

--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jun 10, 2020, 19:40 by t...@fitchfamily.org :
> 
> 
>> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:31 AM, Volker Schmidt > > wrote:
>> 
>> Two points to get this thread back on track:
>> 
>> 1) The highway=track tag has always been wider than agriculture and 
>> forestry. There is an often overlooked "etc." in the description on the 
>> wiki, and it has been there from the very first version of 26 May 2008. (see 
>> also Duck_tagging )
>> 
>> 2) "In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and 
>> their values to make a decision ..."
>> "I think we need some more values for the highway tag..."
>> These two statements together (made in the same message in this thread)  
>> highlight the basic problem of this and other discussions:
>> If we need to look at X tags and values now, adding new values only makes 
>> the list longer - there's no way around this.
> 
> My hope would be that addition of more highway=* values that better match 
> what people are trying to map would be a short term pain (data consumers need 
> to add one more check) but long term benefit.
> 
> For example, as mappers discover they can map a voie verte in France or a 
> “Rails to Trails” in the USA as highway=greenway and not as arbitrary choice 
> of track, path, cycleway or bridle path differentiated by a bunch of 
> foot=designated, bicycle=designated, etc. tags they are likely to migrate to 
> the simpler tagging. At some time in the future data consumers could begin to 
> be more restrictive on their logic.
> While not categorically opposed - it would need a solid proposal. 
> highway=via_ferrata seems one
> that is most viable
> 
> and highway=greenway seems to not be a real improvement and its meaning is 
> utterly unclear for me

“Greenway” [1] was a term unknown to me too until I started reading a bit about 
voie verte [2] in France. I probably would have considered them to be “rail 
trails” [3] prior to reading about them.

But I am not wedded to a particular set of words for new highway values, just 
that we should consider the possibility of them and maybe have a discussion on 
what highway=* features seem to be hard for mappers to tag consistently. There 
are no via ferrata paths that I am aware of in my immediate area, but reading 
wikipedia about them I can see where that could be hard to map using our 
current tagging so that could certainly be one of the new highway values.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenway_(landscape)
[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voie_verte
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_trail



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:31 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Two points to get this thread back on track:
> 
> 1) The highway=track tag has always been wider than agriculture and forestry. 
> There is an often overlooked "etc." in the description on the wiki, and it 
> has been there from the very first version of 26 May 2008. (see also 
> Duck_tagging )
> 
> 2) "In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and 
> their values to make a decision ..."
> "I think we need some more values for the highway tag..."
> These two statements together (made in the same message in this thread)  
> highlight the basic problem of this and other discussions:
> If we need to look at X tags and values now, adding new values only makes the 
> list longer - there's no way around this.

My hope would be that addition of more highway=* values that better match what 
people are trying to map would be a short term pain (data consumers need to add 
one more check) but long term benefit.

For example, as mappers discover they can map a voie verte in France or a 
“Rails to Trails” in the USA as highway=greenway and not as arbitrary choice of 
track, path, cycleway or bridle path differentiated by a bunch of 
foot=designated, bicycle=designated, etc. tags they are likely to migrate to 
the simpler tagging. At some time in the future data consumers could begin to 
be more restrictive on their logic.

Cheers,

Tod




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:56, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> Also, the land manager (e.g. parks and recreation department) has access to 
> almost all of their properties via motor vehicle.
> 
> Does this only apply to unpaved ways?  


General motorized traffic is typically excluded, while traffic for agricultural 
or forestry scope has access. It has nothing to do with surface quality, in 
some areas most tracks are paved.


Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 20:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> and highway=greenway seems to not be a real improvement and its meaning is
> utterly unclear for me
>

It may be referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_lane_(road) or
maybe not.
Since "green lane" has no legal significance in the UK, even if we can find
out
what somebody actually intended by the term, it may be of little use.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 10, 2020, 19:40 by t...@fitchfamily.org:

>
>
>
>> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:31 AM, Volker Schmidt <>> vosc...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>>
>> Two points to get this thread back on track:
>>
>> 1) The highway=track tag has always been wider than agriculture and 
>> forestry. There is an often overlooked "etc." in the description on the 
>> wiki, and it has been there from the very first version of 26 May 2008. (see 
>> also >> Duck_tagging >> )
>>
>> 2) "In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and 
>> their values to make a decision ..."
>> "I think we need some more values for the highway tag..." 
>> These two statements together (made in the same message in this thread)  
>> highlight the basic problem of this and other discussions:
>> If we need to look at X tags and values now, adding new values only makes 
>> the list longer - there's no way around this.
>>
> My hope would be that addition of more highway=* values that better match 
> what people are trying to map would be a short term pain (data consumers need 
> to add one more check) but long term benefit.
>
> For example, as mappers discover they can map a voie verte in France or a 
> “Rails to Trails” in the USA as highway=greenway and not as arbitrary choice 
> of track, path, cycleway or bridle path differentiated by a bunch of 
> foot=designated, bicycle=designated, etc. tags they are likely to migrate to 
> the simpler tagging. At some time in the future data consumers could begin to 
> be more restrictive on their logic.
>
While not categorically opposed - it would need a solid proposal. 
highway=via_ferrata seems one
that is most viable

and highway=greenway seems to not be a real improvement and its meaning is 
utterly unclear for me
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Lauri Kytömaa]

>A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a 
>path can't.

If there's something even remotely like that in the wiki, help or elsewhere, it 
needs to be reverted to what it has been from the beginning. all we can say is: 
A track can't be so narrow it can't handle a two tracked vehicle.

All ways will have exceptional use cases (emergency, maintenance) - even if a 
stranded motorist or tow truck driver walks on a motorway, that doesn't mean it 
isn't a motorway where walking is forbidden and likewise, if the city lawnmower 
drives on a highway=path once or twice every year, that doesn't make it a track 
or service.

--
Alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I mean physically. If a vehicle can't use it legally, the access key
must be activated, like in any other feature.
I believe that the legality of circulation shouldn't interfere with the
tagging of a track. For example: a dirt highway in a Natural Reserve
should be always a track, regardless of who can use it. If it's only for
rangers or emergency vehicles, there are tags to reflect that. If only
bikes or hikers can use it, then it's a path.


Às 13:56 de 10/06/2020, Mike Thompson escreveu:



On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM António Madeira
mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:
> If a motor vehicle can and uses the way, it's a track.

When you say "can use" do you mean both legally and physically, or
only physically?. If legally, do you mean just the general public? As
someone pointed out, law enforcement has access to almost everything
via motor vehicle.  Also, the land manager (e.g. parks and recreation
department) has access to almost all of their properties via motor
vehicle.

Does this only apply to unpaved ways?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM António Madeira 
wrote:
> If a motor vehicle can and uses the way, it's a track.

When you say "can use" do you mean both legally and physically, or only
physically?. If legally, do you mean just the general public? As someone
pointed out, law enforcement has access to almost everything via motor
vehicle.  Also, the land manager (e.g. parks and recreation department) has
access to almost all of their properties via motor vehicle.

Does this only apply to unpaved ways?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[António Madeira]

Às 06:03 de 10/06/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:


sent from a phone


On 10. Jun 2020, at 02:31, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.


+1 for service, while tracks may actually “go somewhere”, they might be usable 
as through ways, but they are not considered “roads“ in some jurisdictions at 
least.

service roads are for accessing something (are not part of the connection 
grid), while tracks may (according to the regional situation) form a kind of 
„second grid“ (for agricultural purposes, but eventually open to cyclists, 
hikers, etc. as well).

Cheers Martin



I agree with Martin here. I rarely map a track that goes nowhere, but I
always map a track that connects to another track or to the main grid.
On the other hand, a service road almost always goes nowhere. Either
ends on a private estate or is just used as an access link to a company,
industry or amenity.
If a motor vehicle can and uses the way, it's a track. If not, it's a
path, which only people and bicycles can use in an normal manner. Maybe
this is not as straightforward in other countries, but in Portugal
there's rarely any doubt about this.

Regards,
António.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jun 2020, at 02:31, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
> 'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
> what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
> the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
> single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
> are typically at least 'unclassified'.


+1 for service, while tracks may actually “go somewhere”, they might be usable 
as through ways, but they are not considered “roads“ in some jurisdictions at 
least.

service roads are for accessing something (are not part of the connection 
grid), while tracks may (according to the regional situation) form a kind of 
„second grid“ (for agricultural purposes, but eventually open to cyclists, 
hikers, etc. as well).

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jun 2020, at 01:07, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> I asked this same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a 
> couple of weeks ago on this list and received a largely different answer from 
> the one I am receiving today.   Perhaps it is just that different people are 
> reading this list today. 


frankly I guess most people are not interested in changing the definitions for 
track or path or service, nor are they believing that it is possible to do it, 
hence they might be avoiding reading long threads about these topics. These 
discussions have been held so many times that it is not very likely that new 
arguments will evolve which change everything. It’s my opinion and I might be 
wrong, please don’t feel discouraged to continue the discussion if you think 
differently.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Volker Schmidt]

Two points to get this thread back on track:

1) The highway=track tag has always been wider than agriculture and
forestry. There is an often overlooked "etc." in the description on the
wiki, and it has been there from the very first version of 26 May 2008.
(see also Duck_tagging )

2) "In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and
their values to make a decision ..."
"I think we need some more values for the highway tag..."
These two statements together (made in the same message in this thread)
highlight the basic problem of this and other discussions:
If we need to look at X tags and values now, adding new values only makes
the list longer - there's no way around this.



On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 16:43, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff"
> motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated for
> walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide
> enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly
> used for walking. If you tag it as highway=path then you'd need to still
> indicate it's usable by motor vehicle with motor_vehicles=private (though
> that's only the legal use, not sure how you'd then tag the physical ability
> for it to accommodate motor vehicles).
>
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that
>> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574
>>
>>
>> These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
>> horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
>> side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
>> vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
>> vehicles on these ways.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Daniel Westergren]

Interesting that this discussion came back from another angle. Obviously
there is an issue here that we need some kind of consensus about. There are
advantages with the wiki-style community that OSM is, but cases like this
also demonstrate the clear disadvantages when there is no board or similar
with a mandate to decide about tagging recommendations.

I've been working on a blog post to try and define the problem mainly with
path and footway, as I see it, but it seems like track is part of
the problem too. Until I have had the time to finish the blog post I'd like
to make a couple of observations.

It's pretty easy to use functional tagging for roads, since I suppose in
each country the official road network, usually classified according to the
importance of the roads, is mapped to the OSM highway tags in one way or
another. Fine, there's usually an official classification to use as a
guideline, however the road looks like on the ground.

When it comes to tracks, cycleways, footways and paths there may or may not
be some kind of official network, depending on where you are in the world.
And I suppose that's where the problem begins. If we are to tag according
to function, it's going to be a mess. A path can be a track, a track can be
a path, a cycleway can be a path, a path can be a cycleway, a footway is a
path. It's a jungle.

And since a mapper often doesn't know about any official classification,
they map everything from tracks to paths from what they see on the ground
and in most cases without subtags.

We need to decide if track, footway, cycleway and path all need to be
tagged according to function, and what that really means, or if we tag like
most mappers would, according to what they see on the ground.

I also agree with Tod that there's a need for more highway tags to make
these distinctions. Many people refer to surface and other tags, but the
thing is that in most cases mappers don't use those subtags. In the blog
post I'm working on, I'm going to suggest a few different solutions that I
see may be possible (new highway tags, new subtag(s), better use and
consensus of existing subtags). We can't use the fact that there are
millions of highway=track, highway=path etc. already mapped as an excuse to
not find a lasting solution to an obvious problem.

But since nobody has any more mandate than any other to make such
decisions, will we ever be able to decide? Sure, that question is a
different issue, but my motivation to contribute to OSM is considerably
decreased by these discussions that lead nowhere. If we don't make tagging
easy for data consumers, then who are we tagging for?

/Daniel


Den ons 10 juni 2020 kl 04:17 skrev brad :

>
>
> On 6/9/20 7:27 PM, Warin wrote:
>
> To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) 
> to pass.
> If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be 
> tagged in some other way.
>
> Descriptions of 'path':
>
>
> On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote:
>
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and
> it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for
> pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a
> highway =track 
>  or highway 
> =service 
> .
> "
>
>
> to this:
>
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it
> is often better tagged as a highway 
> =track 
>  or highway 
> =service 
> .
> "
>
>
> Or possibly:
>
> A path should not be wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), for 
> these wider ways see highway 
> =track 
>  or highway 
> =service 
> . 
> 
>
>
> On 10/6/20 10:29 am, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  
>  wrote:
>
>
> 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 

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 9, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't use 'path'  very much except that JOSM wants to use it for
> 'combined foot- and cycleway'.  Using JOSM, I'll typically tag a way
> as a 'path' so that I get the dialog where I can quickly fill in
> surface, smoothness, maybe width and incline.  Then I retag using one
> of the 'footway', 'cycleway' or 'bridleway' presets depending on the
> largest creature that uses it - so I've recently tagged a few
> track-ish things around here as 'highway=bridleway surface=compacted
> smoothness=good bicycle=designated foot=designated width=3'  There's
> some evidence that motor vehicles use it occasionally, but only for
> official purposes.
> 

Precisely why I need to look at so many tags and tag values to decide if 
something is a “hiking trail” or not.

Also, I think, a good argument that the current tagging fails to cover this 
domain very well.




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[brad]

On 6/9/20 7:27 PM, Warin wrote:

To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) 
to pass.
If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be 
tagged in some other way.
Descriptions of 'path':

On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote:

"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and
 it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for
 pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a
 highway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "

 to this:
 "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it
 is often better tagged as ahighway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "



Or possibly:
A path should not be wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m),for these wider ways see highway 
=track 
  orhighway =service 
.



On 10/6/20 10:29 am, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:


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.

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.



In Australia the word 'track' is used in a much broader sense than that used in 
the OSM wiki.
The OSM tagging practice in Australia uses 'track' in that same broader sense - 
so not just agriculture and forestry but also other operators/uses e.g. 
National Parks.
Some of these 'tracks' were put in to enable fire fighting - usually locally 
called 'fire trails'.
Maps generally show these in the same way as forestry trails hence the 
preference to tag them the same way in OSM as 'we' are used to seeing them 
rendered that way.

+1
In the western US, most of the rough, 4wd, or high clearance roads on 
federal land are also tagged as track.   They meet the definition in a 
loose way.    It is established practice.
We're never going to get consensus on this since many of us mappers and 
users think the definition is wrong.  It was written for some other 
locale with different conditions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 9, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad  > 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




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Warin]

To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) 
to pass.
If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be 
tagged in some other way.

Descriptions of 'path':


On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote:

"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and
 it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for
 pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a
 highway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "


 to this:

 "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it
 is often better tagged as ahighway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "



Or possibly:

A path should not be wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m),for these wider ways see highway 
=track 
  orhighway =service 
.




On 10/6/20 10:29 am, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:


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.

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.



In Australia the word 'track' is used in a much broader sense than that used in 
the OSM wiki.

The OSM tagging practice in Australia uses 'track' in that same broader sense - 
so not just agriculture and forestry but also other operators/uses e.g. 
National Parks.
Some of these 'tracks' were put in to enable fire fighting - usually locally 
called 'fire trails'.
Maps generally show these in the same way as forestry trails hence the 
preference to tag them the same way in OSM as 'we' are used to seeing them 
rendered that way.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> 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.

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.  They typically are something
that a router should treat by default as 'access=destination'. They're
the 'leaves' of the network. The distinction makes essentially no
difference to routing, unless you are of the faction that believes
that 'track' is something that needs more than a regular car. Even
then, if your destination lies on a track, you probably are equipped
for it.  It makes a difference to rendering, well, mostly because
someone thought it ought to.

For me, If I see the ruts that indicate that double-tracked vehicles
use a way, it's at least a track.  That causes me to map some hiking
trails as tracks (because they're also snowmobile trails, or because
there's someone with an inholding who has keys to the gate, or the
park service drives on them, or whatever.  I've departed from that in
cases where the ruts are obviously not current, for instance in the
case of a logging road that's been abandoned long enough that trees
are growing in it, even though ruts and workings are clearly visible
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14919563634 - note that not all
the workings have held up as well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920137133)

I don't use 'path'  very much except that JOSM wants to use it for
'combined foot- and cycleway'.  Using JOSM, I'll typically tag a way
as a 'path' so that I get the dialog where I can quickly fill in
surface, smoothness, maybe width and incline.  Then I retag using one
of the 'footway', 'cycleway' or 'bridleway' presets depending on the
largest creature that uses it - so I've recently tagged a few
track-ish things around here as 'highway=bridleway surface=compacted
smoothness=good bicycle=designated foot=designated width=3'  There's
some evidence that motor vehicles use it occasionally, but only for
official purposes.

The locals near me seem to use 'service' or 'unclassified' if you can
drive on it in a regular car (at least in summer) and 'track' if you
are likely to need a four-wheeler or at least a high ground clearance.

This is fundamentally an American perspective. I'm sure that there's
some sort of legal difference in the UK between a service way and a
track that's extremely important.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 10, 2020, 01:05 by miketh...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch <> t...@fitchfamily.org> > wrote:
>
> > 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.
> My understand is that highway=primary/secondary/unclassified/etc. is based on 
> function.  It says nothing about the physical configuration, other than it is 
> suitable for a 2-track vehicle.  See my comment below about unpaved roads in 
> many parts of the world.   
>
+1

> > 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.
> I am willing to change my mind, but I would like:   
> 1) Internal consistency within a definition.
>
Especially as what is supposed to be "physical characteristics as a track"?
Currently highway=track may be maintained paved asphalt track or abandoned 
barely visible
track in grass.

(and "this is unpaved" goes into surface tag, not into highway tag)

> 2) Consistency over time (from week to week, month to month, etc. obviously 
> things can evolve over time, but we don't want to "ping-pong" back and forth) 
>  I don't like having the same discussion over and over again. I asked this 
> same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a couple of weeks 
> ago on this list and received a largely different answer from the one I am 
> receiving today.   Perhaps it is just that different people are reading this 
> list today.  
>
Probably different people (for example I participated in the previous thread 
and had no time
so far to do it with this one)

> 3) Precise. It can't be something like "a driveway is highway=service, 
> service=driveway, unless it is too long or too rough, or *seems* like a 
> track, in which case it is highway=track"  One mapper I corresponded with via 
> change set comments literally told me he mapped a driveway as a track because 
> it seemed track like to them.
>
+1

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> 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.
My understand is that highway=primary/secondary/unclassified/etc. is based
on function.  It says nothing about the physical configuration, other than
it is suitable for a 2-track vehicle.  See my comment below about unpaved
roads in many parts of the world.

> 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.
I am willing to change my mind, but I would like:
1) Internal consistency within a definition.
2) Consistency over time (from week to week, month to month, etc. obviously
things can evolve over time, but we don't want to "ping-pong" back and
forth)  I don't like having the same discussion over and over again. I
asked this same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a
couple of weeks ago on this list and received a largely different answer
from the one I am receiving today.   Perhaps it is just that different
people are reading this list today.
3) Precise. It can't be something like "a driveway is highway=service,
service=driveway, unless it is too long or too rough, or *seems* like a
track, in which case it is highway=track"  One mapper I corresponded with
via change set comments literally told me he mapped a driveway as a track
because it seemed track like to them.

>
> 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?
I can generally tell the difference between a barn and a house based on
satellite imagery.

>
> 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.
In many parts of the world, higher classified roads (primary, secondary,
unclassified, residential, service) are going to be unpaved and somewhat
rough.  That includes some parts of the US I am familiar with.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Peter Elderson]

The dictionary doesn't help much: track:  "a path
 or rough
 road
 that is made of
soil  rather
 than having a
surface 
covered  with
stone  or other
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 :

>
>
> On Jun 9, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad  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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 9, 2020, 21:53 by bradha...@fastmail.com:

> It already says this:
>  "Some > highway > => track> 
>  are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or asjeep/ATV 
> trails."
>  on the track wiki.  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
>  
>  I propose changing the path page from this:
>  "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), andit 
> is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed forpedestrians, 
> cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a > highway 
> > => track 
> >  or > highway 
> > => service 
> > ."
>  
>  to this:
>  "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), itis 
> often better tagged as a > highway 
> > => track 
> >  or > highway 
> > => service 
> > ."
>  
>  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
>
Many highway=path are 2m+ and not used as access to fields or for forestry use.

And if something is used as access to fields or for forestry use and car-sized 
vehicle
can fit there it already fulfills definition of a track. 

>  To clarify, we could change the track page from this:
>  "This > tag >  represents roads for 
>mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; often unpaved(unsealed) 
> but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitablefor > two> -track 
> vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps." 
>  to this:
>  "This > tag >  represents roads for 
>agricultural use, forest tracks, > recreation> , etc.; oftenunpaved 
> (unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that aresuitable for > 
> two> -track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps." 
>
I am not convinced that starting to tag larger cycleways as highway=track would 
be improvement.

I deeply dislike entire concept of highway=track (IMHO it is a big mistake 
together with highway=path),
but this would make it even worse.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad  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"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[brad]

A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, 
a path can't.


If functional is sacrosanct,  why do we have motorway?   A motorway 
could just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access.


On 6/9/20 2:11 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad > wrote:

>
> It already says this:
> "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - 
hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. "
> on the track wiki. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
Right, there is nothing that says that a track cannot be used for 
additional purposes, only that its primary function is agricultural or 
forestry.


> I propose changing the path page from this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and 
it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for 
pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a 
highway=track or highway=service. "

>
> to this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it 
is often better tagged as a highway=track or highway=service. "
1) So we are getting away from the whole notion of "functional 
classification"?  highway=track will only be a proxy for some 
physical/legal access characteristics?
2) If we are going to use this definition I would propose stronger 
language than "often better tagged", perhaps "should almost always be 
tagged."


Mike

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad  wrote:
>
> It already says this:
> "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - hiking,
cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. "
> on the track wiki.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
Right, there is nothing that says that a track cannot be used for
additional purposes, only that its primary function is agricultural or
forestry.

> I propose changing the path page from this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and it
is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians,
cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway=track or
highway=service. "
>
> to this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it is
often better tagged as a highway=track or highway=service. "
1) So we are getting away from the whole notion of "functional
classification"?  highway=track will only be a proxy for some
physical/legal access characteristics?
2) If we are going to use this definition I would propose stronger language
than "often better tagged", perhaps "should almost always be tagged."

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I propose changing the path page...

Disagree. A track is primarily used for agriculture, forestry or related
activities.

A path is primarily used by people on foot, on bicycles, or on horseback.

While most paths are narrow, because those 3 means of transportation do not
require a wide roadway, there are many paths which are 3 to 4 meters wide,
where motor vehicles can theoretically access them, but they are not
agricultural or forestry tracks, but are designed and used as multi-use
paths.

Consider that the average sidewalk is 3 meters wide in most developed
cities, which is plenty wide to drive a small car down it. That is not a
highway=track, its a sidewalk.

Most paths and footways in urban parks are more than 2 meters wide. They
are not tracks.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:55 PM brad  wrote:

> It already says this:
> "Some highway =track are
> used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV
> trails. "
> on the track wiki.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
>
> I propose changing the path page from this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and it is
> not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians, cyclists
> or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway
> =track
>  or highway
> =service
> . "
>
> to this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it is
> often better tagged as a highway
> =track
>  or highway
> =service
> . "
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
>
> To clarify, we could change the track page from this:
> "This tag  represents roads for
> mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; often unpaved (unsealed) but
> may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for *two*-track
> vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps."
> to this:
> "This tag  represents roads for
> agricultural use, forest tracks, *recreation*, etc.; often unpaved
> (unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for
> *two*-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "
>
> On 6/9/20 11:52 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
> >
> > If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance
> staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated
> for walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide
> enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly
> used for walking.
> This is just the opposite advice I got on this list about a similar
> situation a couple of weeks ago. As a community we need to have some
> consistency.  There is another user (other than I or cosmocatalano) who is
> going around making the exact opposite changes as cosmocatalano.  If the
> community agrees with you and cosmocatalano, I will map accordingly and
> make changes in my local area along those lines, but I don't want to have
> the same conversation here two weeks from now.
>
> > you'd need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle
> width= +
> smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that
>>> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574
>>>
>>>
>>> These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
>>> horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
>>> side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
>>> vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
>>> vehicles on these ways.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[brad]

It already says this:
"Some highway =track 
are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as 
jeep/ATV trails. "

on the track wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

I propose changing the path page from this:
"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and it 
is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians, 
cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway 
=track 
 or highway 
=service 
. "


to this:
"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it is 
often better tagged as a highway 
=track 
 or highway 
=service 
. "


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath

To clarify, we could change the track page from this:
"This tag  represents roads for 
mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; often unpaved (unsealed) 
but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for /two/-track 
vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps."

to this:
"This tag  represents roads for 
agricultural use, forest tracks, *recreation*, etc.; often unpaved 
(unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for 
/two/-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "


On 6/9/20 11:52 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey > wrote:

>
> If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance 
staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's 
designated for walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, 
since it's wide enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a 
path that is mostly used for walking.
This is just the opposite advice I got on this list about a similar 
situation a couple of weeks ago. As a community we need to have some 
consistency.  There is another user (other than I or cosmocatalano) 
who is going around making the exact opposite changes as 
cosmocatalano.  If the community agrees with you and cosmocatalano, I 
will map accordingly and make changes in my local area along those 
lines, but I don't want to have the same conversation here two weeks 
from now.


> you'd need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle
width= + 
smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent





On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson mailto:miketh...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of
you that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot,
bicycle or horseback.  One will occasionally see a park
maintenance vehicle, such as a side by side ATV (I don't think
one could even get a regular four wheeled vehicle back
there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
vehicles on these ways.

Mike

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Yves]

My own simple definition, I may be wrong but that's how I map it :
If there is two line on the ground indicating that a 4 wheel vehicle went 
trough, it's a highway=track.
Yves ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:01:30 -0600
brad  wrote:

> I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open
> for that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.
> track or service

In the United States, and probably in most other common-law countries,
*everything* is open to emergency vehicles.  The "emergency" tag is
really only useful in variants like "emergency=designated", since it's
legal for them to go anywhere they can physically fit.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:
>
> If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff"
motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated for
walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide
enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly
used for walking.
This is just the opposite advice I got on this list about a similar
situation a couple of weeks ago. As a community we need to have some
consistency.  There is another user (other than I or cosmocatalano) who is
going around making the exact opposite changes as cosmocatalano.  If the
community agrees with you and cosmocatalano, I will map accordingly and
make changes in my local area along those lines, but I don't want to have
the same conversation here two weeks from now.

> you'd need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle
width= +
smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent




On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that
>> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574
>>
>>
>> These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
>> horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
>> side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
>> vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
>> vehicles on these ways.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

OnTue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM brad  wrote:
>
> I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for
that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.   track or
service
in an emergency, almost everything is open to some authority using vehicles
of some sort. Even wilderness areas, which normally prohibit all motorized
vehicles, allows their use in "life threatening situations"[0]

[0] https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd511707.pdf
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[brad]

I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for 
that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.   track 
or service


On 6/9/20 8:42 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance 
staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's 
designated for walking then foot=designated + 
motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide enough and occasionally used by 
vehicles, even for a path that is mostly used for walking. If you tag 
it as highway=path then you'd need to still indicate it's usable by 
motor vehicle with motor_vehicles=private (though that's only the 
legal use, not sure how you'd then tag the physical ability for it to 
accommodate motor vehicles).




On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson > wrote:


I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you
that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot,
bicycle or horseback.  One will occasionally see a park
maintenance vehicle, such as a side by side ATV (I don't think one
could even get a regular four wheeled vehicle back there.), but
the public is not allowed to operate motor vehicles on these ways.

Mike

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Andrew Harvey]

If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff"
motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated for
walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide
enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly
used for walking. If you tag it as highway=path then you'd need to still
indicate it's usable by motor vehicle with motor_vehicles=private (though
that's only the legal use, not sure how you'd then tag the physical ability
for it to accommodate motor vehicles).



On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson  wrote:

> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that
> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574
>
>
> These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
> horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
> side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
> vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
> vehicles on these ways.
>
> Mike
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that are
more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
vehicles on these ways.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging