Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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

2020-07-28 Thread Kevin Broderick
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

2020-07-28 Thread Matthew Woehlke

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

2020-07-28 Thread Paul Johnson
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

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

2020-07-28 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



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

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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

2020-07-27 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



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

2020-07-27 Thread Matthew Woehlke

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

2020-07-27 Thread Mike Thompson
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

2020-07-27 Thread Mike Thompson
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

2020-07-27 Thread brad



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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
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

2020-07-27 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



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

2020-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
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

2020-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
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