Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:54, Kevin Broderick wrote: > > The homeowner now maintains the driveway (or sometimes more than one > homeowner maintains a shared driveway), but the right-of-way remains open to > the public, even beyond the regularly maintained driveway. if you add service=driveway for the avoidance of doubt I would add access=yes Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor service > road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've tagged plenty of > things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking lots, especially) as > service=driveway. IMHO these a highway=service without the driveway subtag Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
Re: the discussion of driveways that are public ways, there *are* a fair number of such things in New England, particularly Vermont. I suspect there may be other places with similar situations, but I'm not sure; Vermont has a particular set of laws around town right-of-ways that have preserved public access to a lot of ways that you wouldn't necessarily think are a public roadway by looking at them. In Vermont, the typical case is that a house was built on an old road. The town then decided to stop maintaining said road, but didn't release the right-of-way. The homeowner now maintains the driveway (or sometimes more than one homeowner maintains a shared driveway), but the right-of-way remains open to the public, even beyond the regularly maintained driveway. One such example is Orchard Road / Town HIghway 17 in Lincoln, Vermont (c.f. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242164910); the legal right of way continue from the driveway across the lawn and then into the woods, where it becomes a typical woods road / Jeep trail. I'm not sure about the history in this case, but the evidence on the ground is consistent with the pattern (and it happens to show up pretty well on imagery). Where the ROW dead-ends with the driveway, it's more likely that the town will go through the steps to release the ROW back to the landowner (particularly if the landowner is seeking to transfer the property). In that case, I felt that it was most appropriate to tag the public ROW as way=residential leading to the house and the continued way as highway=track. IMO, I don't think service=driveway is appropriate for a public right-of-way that allows access to other properties or roadways, even if the *primary* usage is accessing a particular property. On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:27 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 28/07/2020 03.15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Never use the driveway tag on public ways > > Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor > service road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've > tagged plenty of things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking > lots, especially) as service=driveway. > > ...OTOH they probably aren't technically *public* roads, even though > there are generally open to the public. > > For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/378672974. > > -- > Matthew > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On 28/07/2020 03.15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Never use the driveway tag on public ways Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor service road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've tagged plenty of things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking lots, especially) as service=driveway. ...OTOH they probably aren't technically *public* roads, even though there are generally open to the public. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/378672974. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> >> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as >> residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as >> service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag on public ways >> >> Why? Driveway may be public both as in >> "available to use by general public" >> and "constructed on land owned by >> government or other public entity" or >> both at the same time. >> > > > citation needed... > The turnaround on Larch Mountain Road, on Larch Mountain, Oregon. Hood NF 15 becomes Hood NF 1500-021 for a moderately sized one-way trailhead driveway. Camp Baldwin Road, Camp Baldwin, Oregon. I believe the main entrance is Hood NF 4450 and the road has been impassable through the north side of camp for decades due to an archery range being in the way. Looks like Hood National Forest recently renumbered things so where 4450 used to leave the north end of the camp before it was built is now 4460-140 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as > residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as > service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag on public ways > > Why? Driveway may be public both as in > "available to use by general public" > and "constructed on land owned by > government or other public entity" or > both at the same time. > citation needed... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
28 Jul 2020, 09:15 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> As result, in initial stages something >> used solely as a driveway to a single >> house will be already named with >> it's own street name. >> > > > I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as > residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as > service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag on public ways > Why? Driveway may be public both as in "available to use by general public" and "constructed on land owned by government or other public entity" or both at the same time.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > As result, in initial stages something > used solely as a driveway to a single > house will be already named with > it's own street name. I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag on public ways Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
28 Jul 2020, 06:47 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: > On 27/07/2020 17.59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com: >> >>> I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if >>> it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be >>> highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's vacation cabins, or >>> seasonal or full-time houses ? >>> >> >> Maybe "named therefore residential, service otherwise" makes >> sense in your region, but in some places (for example Poland) >> there are named service roads and unnamed residential roads. >> > > If the road leads to houses, residential probably makes sense. The reason I > want to chime in here, though, is that *in general* I agree with this last > comment. TIGER seems to label everything that isn't > primary/secondary/tertiary as "residential", but per the wiki, residential is > supposed to only be used for roads that are, well *residential*, i.e. are > leading to or fronted by *residences*. > And in case of long sections without residences (between villages etc) it is also not highway=residential > TL;DR: I assume that Rob had an unstated "if it leads to residences" in > there, and probably should have stated it, because the rest of the assertion > is only valid *with* that assumption. > Even then, some roads may be named but still do not qualify for residential It depends on location, in Poland name may be assigned to not yet existing street. As result, in initial stages something used solely as a driveway to a single house will be already named with it's own street name. Name may be still assigned to something that is nowadays not a full road, but for example footway in a park or a service road.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On 27/07/2020 17.59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com: I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's vacation cabins, or seasonal or full-time houses ? Maybe "named therefore residential, service otherwise" makes sense in your region, but in some places (for example Poland) there are named service roads and unnamed residential roads. If the road leads to houses, residential probably makes sense. The reason I want to chime in here, though, is that *in general* I agree with this last comment. TIGER seems to label everything that isn't primary/secondary/tertiary as "residential", but per the wiki, residential is supposed to only be used for roads that are, well *residential*, i.e. are leading to or fronted by *residences*. Personally, when I see stuff like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/734188025, I re-tag it highway=service or highway=unclassified. That road (apparently¹) has a name, but it's clearly *not* a residential road; it's the access road to a strip mall. (¹ Seeing as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50738336 is apparently "also" Southside Drive, I would question the name on way 734188025, but I can't get there right now to do a survey. However, that's sort of beside the point.) TL;DR: I assume that Rob had an unstated "if it leads to residences" in there, and probably should have stated it, because the rest of the assertion is only valid *with* that assumption. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:38 PM brad wrote: > > > > I'm in central Colorado, & around here, I agree, tracktype is not > useful, the tracks here are mostly solid, grade 2 or 3, but could be a > high clearance, or 4wd road due to rocks and ledges. > However, smoothness could, and should be rendered. The old maps > usually distinguished between > improved - smoothness=bad or better than bad > high clearance - smoothness=very_bad (the wiki specifically mentions > high clearance for this tag) > 4wd - smoothness=horrible > I am in northern Colorado, and I generally agree. If I have been on, or at least seen a road directly (not just in overhead imagery), I try to add a smoothness tag. However, I think some mappers who may not be familiar with the mountains may assume that all unpaved roads are not suitable for regular passenger vehicles, which is not the case. It may not be a comfortable experience, but you can drive your Honda Civic (e.g.) on some pretty rough roads without getting stuck or doing damage to it. > In my area an almost bigger issue is that a lot of roads shown on OSM, > and on the county GIS, are actually private and closed. Yes, this is a problem I have encountered while exploring in the mountains, both on foot and while driving. Even official FS data doesn't always correctly show this information. Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:07 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > >> On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct >> >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) >> >> these would be highway=service not track. >> >> I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if >> it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be >> highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's vacation cabins, or >> seasonal or full-time houses ? >> > > I don't think so. The typical named forest service road isn't typically > better or worse than the unnamed ones that only go by their ref. > I consider the fact that a road has a name as a "hint" that it might not be a track, but it shouldn't provide a definitive answer. There are named tracks around here (Colorado, US), especially if they are popular with 4x4 folks, ATV'ers, mountain bikers, etc. The real test is whether it leads to facilities that are occupied by humans on a more or less full time on-going basis. Full time residences (or occupied a significant part of the year) =residential, on going business where employees, customers, etc. visit daily =service. Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On 7/27/20 11:19 AM, Rob Savoye wrote: On 7/27/20 11:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* tags as necessary. Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads. That's roughly what I've been doing, Drive or hike there, and decide on the values for those tags while standing there. I'm still curious about "narrow" though. :-) I don't think smoothness gets rendered though, and everything is usually a grade2, so somewhat meaningless. I'm in central Colorado, & around here, I agree, tracktype is not useful, the tracks here are mostly solid, grade 2 or 3, but could be a high clearance, or 4wd road due to rocks and ledges. However, smoothness could, and should be rendered. The old maps usually distinguished between improved - smoothness=bad or better than bad high clearance - smoothness=very_bad (the wiki specifically mentions high clearance for this tag) 4wd - smoothness=horrible In my area an almost bigger issue is that a lot of roads shown on OSM, and on the county GIS, are actually private and closed. That may not be an issue for you though, if you have an emergency, and bolt cutters. In regards to your initial question, I've never seen the key narrow used, or lanes on an unpaved road. I think width would be better. That probably wouldn't get rendered either, I've never considered it. itself. If the placard has a horizontal orientation (read from left to right), then it's intended to be passable by most vehicles but may or may not be paved. If the placard has a vertical orientation (read from top down), then don't count on your car being able to make it, you'll probably need something with ground clearance and 4WD if it's traversable at all with a motor vehicle. Yep, we teach our trainees that, and since we use current USGS topo maps as basemaps in OsmAnd, you get that and the OSM data. Best of both. Sure beats the days we used a thick paper map book, and a bag of topo maps. Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance vehicle or UTV and decide after driving it. - rob - ___ 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] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct > >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) > >> these would be highway=service not track. > > I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if > it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be > highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's vacation cabins, or > seasonal or full-time houses ? > I don't think so. The typical named forest service road isn't typically better or worse than the unnamed ones that only go by their ref. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com: > On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >>> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct >>> if it is leading to only vacation huts) >>> these would be highway=service not track. >>> > > I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if > it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be > highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's vacation cabins, or > seasonal or full-time houses ? > Maybe "named therefore residential, service otherwise" makes sense in your region, but in some places (for example Poland) there are named service roads and unnamed residential roads. highway=track may lead to for example two seasonal huts, occupied just during holidays - and still be highway=track It gets more dubious if it leads to "real" residential area (and yes, it may be group of vacation cabins or full-time houses) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
sent from a phone > On 27. Jul 2020, at 21:56, Rob Savoye wrote: > > I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if > it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be > highway=residential? that’s how I would see it as well Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) >> these would be highway=service not track. I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's vacation cabins, or seasonal or full-time houses ? - rob - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
sent from a phone > On 27. Jul 2020, at 17:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if it is > leading to > only vacation huts) these would be highway=service not track. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference > doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change > drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance > vehicle or UTV and decide after driving it. > Right, always a good idea (especially with the 4-digit roads). Just trying to give some insight as to the forest service's thought process. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On 7/27/20 11:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* > tags as necessary. Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit > US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness > are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads. That's roughly what I've been doing, Drive or hike there, and decide on the values for those tags while standing there. I'm still curious about "narrow" though. :-) I don't think smoothness gets rendered though, and everything is usually a grade2, so somewhat meaningless. > itself. If the placard has a horizontal orientation (read from left to > right), then it's intended to be passable by most vehicles but may or > may not be paved. If the placard has a vertical orientation (read from > top down), then don't count on your car being able to make it, you'll > probably need something with ground clearance and 4WD if it's > traversable at all with a motor vehicle. Yep, we teach our trainees that, and since we use current USGS topo maps as basemaps in OsmAnd, you get that and the OSM data. Best of both. Sure beats the days we used a thick paper map book, and a bag of topo maps. Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance vehicle or UTV and decide after driving it. - rob - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On 7/27/20 10:10 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > 3 and 4 digit forest service roads? They're there exclusively there for > the benefit of forestry (namely logging, replanting and fire > suppression). If they happen to help someone else get where they're > going, great, but that's not what they're built and maintained for. Actually around here, almost all roads have a 3-4 digit reference because we're in a national forest. They apply to most every "highway", residential, ATV tracks, hiking trails, and driveways, and aren't exclusive at all. Even the county maintained roads have a ref:usfs. The ref:usfs often changes at intersections, and the ref for the county road may not. Much of the map data (Tiger, etc...) is really out of date and wildly wrong, so I go there and see what the sign says it is. The only roads exclusively for forestry or emergency access have a locked gate with a USFS lock. Non USFS locks are for private driveways. Some gates have two locks, one for forestry access, the other for home-owners. Both are usually posted as well. Fire fighter officers carry special master keys for these, or occasionally resort to bolt-cutters or chainsaws. Most of these roads weren't built by the forest service, they are left-over from the mining era in the 1800s, and pre-date the formation of the forest service. They just adopted them, and stuck reference numbers on them. Lately many are being closed off, so I've been doing a lot of field trips to update things based on reality. - rob - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* tags as necessary. Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads. A big hint: There's three types of USFS shields in use for the same series of networks. Each forest has its own network. The 5 sided shields with 1 or 2 digit numbers are paved highways, usually two or three lanes and traversable at a decent clip. For 3 and 4 digit roads, it's usually just a brown rectangular placard with the number by itself. If the placard has a horizontal orientation (read from left to right), then it's intended to be passable by most vehicles but may or may not be paved. If the placard has a vertical orientation (read from top down), then don't count on your car being able to make it, you'll probably need something with ground clearance and 4WD if it's traversable at all with a motor vehicle. On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:46 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 7/27/20 9:18 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if > > it is leading to only vacation huts) > > It's a residential "track" to the vacation houses, often usually only > used in the summer or for ski trips. After the last building it > degenerates into a worse track. While changing > highway/smoothness/tracktype/surface at that transition spot helps, they > also often get much narrower. > > - rob - > > ___ > 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] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On 7/27/20 9:18 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if > it is leading to only vacation huts) It's a residential "track" to the vacation houses, often usually only used in the summer or for ski trips. After the last building it degenerates into a worse track. While changing highway/smoothness/tracktype/surface at that transition spot helps, they also often get much narrower. - rob - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Date: Jul 27, 2020, 15:54 > From: ba...@ursamundi.org > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > > The question is how to tag the change in the road. Usually it becomes > "smoothness=very_bad", etc... The question is since it's now more of a > track used by jeeps, should it be narrow=yes, still lanes=1, or should I > use width=2m ? To me, lanes= seems to apply more to non 4wd_only tracks. > They're also usually narrower than the single lane highway too. The > width of the "highway" is important if you're trying to figure out what > size fire truck to bring to the wildland fire... > > > highway=track. There's no lanes, so leave that tag off. Never heard of > narrow=yes before. > > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if it > is leading to > only vacation huts) > 3 and 4 digit forest service roads? They're there exclusively there for the benefit of forestry (namely logging, replanting and fire suppression). If they happen to help someone else get where they're going, great, but that's not what they're built and maintained for. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
Date: Jul 27, 2020, 15:54 From: ba...@ursamundi.org To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob Savoye <> r...@senecass.com> > wrote: > >> The question is how to tag the change in the road. Usually it becomes >> "smoothness=very_bad", etc... The question is since it's now more of a >> track used by jeeps, should it be narrow=yes, still lanes=1, or should I >> use width=2m ? To me, lanes= seems to apply more to non 4wd_only tracks. >> They're also usually narrower than the single lane highway too. The >> width of the "highway" is important if you're trying to figure out what >> size fire truck to bring to the wildland fire... >> > > highway=track. There's no lanes, so leave that tag off. Never heard of > narrow=yes before. > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if it is leading to only vacation huts) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
