Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 23, 2020, 20:41 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:31 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
>
>> It is extremely rare - if there is single access road to a private residence
>> then it is a driveway no matter whatever it is paved asphalt road or
>> something that requires tractor to pass.
>>
>> Maybe it would matter in case where there is one road used as driveway and
>> second road that may be used to access property but is unused, possibly due 
>> to
>> poor state.
>>
>> But that would because one functions as driveway and one not.
>> In case of people using worse-quality road as a driveway
>> and not using better quality road as a driveway
>> the tagging also should follow function and road used as driveway
>> should be tagged as driveway.
>>
>
> The case that I scratch my head over is a road whose primary purpose
> is farming or forestry, but that is also the path of access to
> someone's cabin.
>
OK, I agree that this one is tricky, and this case is more complicated.
I limited my discussion to single use roads (either track or driveway),
because I was trying to attack "something used solely as driveway
but low quality may not be tagged as a driveway" what is clearly wrong.

I forgot about this case where something is actually both driveway and both 
track.

>  You seem to be saying that the presence of a dwelling
> trumps all other uses, but that doesn't make sense to me.  Some of the
> cabins on inholdings in the forests around here are accessed by ATV or
> snowmobile, depending on the season, because the road has deteriorated
> beyond what a typical SUV can handle. (No, they don't get Amazon
> deliveries.)
>
This problem is just avoided by my formulation
(or maybe holiday cabin still counts as a residence?).

But in some cases you have one house or one isolated group of 
houses deep in a forest.

In this case I would say that last stage (road connecting this dwelling
to the forest track system) is highway=service, service=driveway,
without downgrading entire forest track system to a driveway status.

So maybe my claim should be
"something used solely or primarily as a driveway is a driveway,
no matter its physical characteristics (surface, lane count, smoothness,
access, ownership).

And therefore tagged as highway=service service=driveway"
?

>  I also don't want to say that a logging track is a
> residential driveway just because there's one guy with a parcel
> somewhere fifteen miles off the highway, when the only other traffic
> on the track is International Paper's trucks.
>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:31 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> It is extremely rare - if there is single access road to a private residence
> then it is a driveway no matter whatever it is paved asphalt road or
> something that requires tractor to pass.
>
> Maybe it would matter in case where there is one road used as driveway and
> second road that may be used to access property but is unused, possibly due to
> poor state.
>
> But that would because one functions as driveway and one not.
> In case of people using worse-quality road as a driveway
> and not using better quality road as a driveway
> the tagging also should follow function and road used as driveway
> should be tagged as driveway.

The case that I scratch my head over is a road whose primary purpose
is farming or forestry, but that is also the path of access to
someone's cabin. You seem to be saying that the presence of a dwelling
trumps all other uses, but that doesn't make sense to me.  Some of the
cabins on inholdings in the forests around here are accessed by ATV or
snowmobile, depending on the season, because the road has deteriorated
beyond what a typical SUV can handle. (No, they don't get Amazon
deliveries.) I also don't want to say that a logging track is a
residential driveway just because there's one guy with a parcel
somewhere fifteen miles off the highway, when the only other traffic
on the track is International Paper's trucks.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 22, 2020, 03:09 by miketh...@gmail.com:

> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <> 
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> > If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will 
> > depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a driveway, 
> > and when you would consider it track, that’s why there isn’t a clear limit 
> > on a global level.
> This seems to contradict what > Mateusz  said. "> Way used solely to access a 
> private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter
> whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes 
> wide."
>
> So you are saying that the highway=* tag depends not just on its function, 
> not just on its physical condition, but also on its physical condition 
> relative to the other ways in the vicinity?!   
>
It is probably the same case again.

1) there are two roads that can be used as access road
2) one is high quality, one is terrible
3) therefore better one is solely used as driveway, while terrible is used 
solely
    to access field/forest along it
4) one used as driveway is tagged as driveway, one used as field/forest access
    is tagged as highway=track

In this case physical characteristics impacted functional charateristics
what changed highway classification.

But highway=* should consider solely character.

Some interpret this as "all unpaved is highway=track". This is wrong.

Similarly reasoning going like

1) in my country roads forming national road grid (highway=trunk) are
    all dual carriageway
2) therefore all trunks must be paved dual carriageway

is similarly broken.

functional and physical and administrative classification often match
and it is tempting to pretend that there is an exact match.

But sooner or later you run into weird cases like road ranked high
in official classification but of low quality.

Poland has for example case of road that used to lead to a bridge 
(destroyed in WW II, not rebuild).

It is still officially highly ranked, but as it leads solely to riverside 
fields it is
highway=track. It does not matter at all that it is "droga krajowa"
or "droga wojewódzka".

Extremely high-quality logging rod through forest is still highway=track.

Extremely low quality driveway is still highway=service + service=driveway
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Warin]

On 22/5/20 6:24 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 22. May 2020, at 03:10, Mike Thompson  wrote:

This seems to contradict what Mateusz  said. "Way used solely to access a 
private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter
whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes wide."


While I have not so far split service ways because of length, I would not 
completely reject the idea either (based on local conditions, in my area it 
isn’t necessary to do it).
I know Mateusz was exaggerating, but clearly a 22 lanes wide way would very 
improbably be considered a service=driveway. More likely you would consider it 
a leisure=pitch ;-)

He wrote “used solely to access a residence”, which is less probable the longer 
the way is (typically you would also use it to access places between its start 
and end), so it is not necessarily contradicting.



To access some residences in Australia you have to drive ~100km off the public 
roads.

While there might (or might not) be a water tank along the way the fact remains 
the road is the driveway.
And no amazon etc will not deliver, you have to drive to there 'local' depot.



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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 22, 2020, 00:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>>> On 21. May 2020, at 23:17, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>>
>> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is 
>> highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is 
>> too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical 
>> classification).
>>
>> If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are 
>> data users/consumers supposed to figure this out?
>>
>
>
> I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is 
> actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth 
> showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). 
>
? standard tagging is highway=service with service=driveway

Removal of service=driveway in such case is an incorrect mapping for renderer 
and
damaging OSM data.

Not adding service=driveway in such case is an incomplete mapping that anyone 
may
improve by adding service=driveway.

> If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more
>
It is extremely rare - if there is single access road to a private residence 
then it is a driveway no matter whatever it is paved asphalt road or 
something that requires tractor to pass.

Maybe it would matter in case where there is one road used as driveway and
second road that may be used to access property but is unused, possibly due to 
poor state.

But that would because one functions as driveway and one not. 
In case of people using worse-quality road as a driveway 
and not using better quality road as a driveway
the tagging also should follow function and road used as driveway
should be tagged as driveway.

> , it will depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a 
> driveway
>
Driveway may be of any quality. highway=service with service=driveway may
be unpaved, muddy and require tractor to pass.

If it is driveway then it still should be tagged as such, not as highway=track.

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. May 2020, at 03:10, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> This seems to contradict what Mateusz  said. "Way used solely to access a 
> private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter
> whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes 
> wide."


While I have not so far split service ways because of length, I would not 
completely reject the idea either (based on local conditions, in my area it 
isn’t necessary to do it). 
I know Mateusz was exaggerating, but clearly a 22 lanes wide way would very 
improbably be considered a service=driveway. More likely you would consider it 
a leisure=pitch ;-)

He wrote “used solely to access a residence”, which is less probable the longer 
the way is (typically you would also use it to access places between its start 
and end), so it is not necessarily contradicting.

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule
is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be
worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service
roads).
Isn't that tagging for the renderer?

> The distinction by width (wide enough for a car or only for a bike) seems
a very fundamental one, it has also functional implications. On the other
hand, footways and cycleways may be wide enough for a car, their tagging is
mostly determined by the legal situation, (e.g. signed, in parks), and the
same for their path synonyms (with *=designated), so it’s only between “non
designated” path and track that width is decisive (functionally: usable by
tractors or not).
According to what others are saying here - if I am understanding correctly
- width should have nothing to do with it (other than if the width is too
narrow for certain functions).

> If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will
depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a driveway,
and when you would consider it track, that’s why there isn’t a clear limit
on a global level.
This seems to contradict what Mateusz  said. "Way used solely to access a
private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter
whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes
wide."

So you are saying that the highway=* tag depends not just on its function,
not just on its physical condition, but also on its physical condition
relative to the other ways in the vicinity?!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:
>
> > Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?
>
> No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly
cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes horses) are 3 to 4
meters wide, and occasionally even wider. Police sometimes drive cars on
these paths to access emergencies, and the bridges are strong enough for a
motor vehicle, but non-emergency vehicles are excluded and the paths are
clearly made for bikes and pedestrians.
That makes sense.

> > a way intended for walking, running, cycling is
 highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its
width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified)
(physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service,
pedestrian, or something else.
>
> It is incorrect to use the different highway values for physical
classification; the differences are functional. Usually the form follows
the function. E.g. a highway=pedestrian is generally a whole street where
motor vehicles are excluded (though they might enter for emergencies or at
certain times for deliveries).
That too makes sense.

> > A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).
>
> The length and surface do not have any bearing on the classification, in
theory. While it's true that highway=track is sometimes misused for unpaved
driveways, this is generally an example of mistagging for the renderer,
since many styles do not render unpaved service roads differently,
unfortunately. It's possible for private service roads to be several
kilometers in length, though this is much more common for industrial or
business-related service roads, rather than residential driveways.
Up in the mountains around here we have some long driveways (although
several km would be rare), either because the property itself is very
large, or because it is an inholding in the National Forest.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:49 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as
a pedestrian road,
> > with varied opinions.
> Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?
>
> It is not an automatic error.
Good, that makes sense.


> General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way
according to community consensus.  However, when it comes to the highway=*
tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical
classification, which is confusing.
>
> It is functional classification, except highway=motorway.
That is what I have always thought, but it seems that some people seem to
object to the way in question being tagged as highway=path (because it is
wide and its surface is gravel?) when it is clearly (I surveyed it in
person) constructed and signed for recreational foot and bike use and is
owned and operated by the City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Department
(I guess I could add an operator=* tag if that would help).

> There are unpaved highway=trunk, there are paved highway=track and so on.
>
> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).
>
> Way used solely to access a private residence is always highway=service,
service=driveway no matter
> whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes
wide.
Again, this is what I have always thought, but there was an earlier
discussion on this list where some people objected.

>
> Why you think that "too rough" driveway is no longer highway=service,
service=driveway?
> (if based on poor wiki docs then I would be happy to fix, if it is based
on iD presets then
> I would not recommend using iD presets to learn how OSM tagging works -
there are
> some problematic cases like peculiar description of highway=track that
are deliberately
> unfixed)
I use JOSM, and usually enter tags by hand as opposed to using the presets.
In the above mentioned earlier discussion some participants were opposed to
me changing a highway=track to highway=service, service=driveway based on
length and condition.  Someone even questioned whether the owner of the
property might own a 4x4 vehicle and if that was necessary to access the
residence over the way in question. I didn't think that could have anything
to do with it.

> if confused ask on mailing list (or elsewhere).
That is usually the source of confusion.  Multiple, conflicting, views.

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 21. May 2020, at 23:17, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is 
> highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is 
> too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical 
> classification).
> 
> If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are data 
> users/consumers supposed to figure this out?


I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is 
actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth 
showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). 


The distinction by width (wide enough for a car or only for a bike) seems a 
very fundamental one, it has also functional implications. On the other hand, 
footways and cycleways may be wide enough for a car, their tagging is mostly 
determined by the legal situation, (e.g. signed, in parks), and the same for 
their path synonyms (with *=designated), so it’s only between “non designated” 
path and track that width is decisive (functionally: usable by tractors or not).

If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will 
depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a driveway, and 
when you would consider it track, that’s why there isn’t a clear limit on a 
global level.

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 23:15 by miketh...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by > miketh...@gmail.com> :
> >
> > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some 
> > similar value)?
> >
> > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve, 
> > or cycleway
> > on a slope may be noticeably larger.
> >
> > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a 
> > pedestrian road,
> > with varied opinions.
> Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, 
> width=4 would be an error?
>
It is not an automatic error.

Cycleway bridge 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.03088&mlon=19.81907#map=19/50.03088/19.81907
is quite wide, still it is clearly a cycleway.

Some areas with heavy tourism and slowly recovering nature may have extremely 
wide paths,
Czerwone Wierchy in Tatra Mountains are one of sad cases.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Czerwone_Wierchy_widok_w_stron%C4%99_Tatr_Wysokich.jpg
It is certainly path (tagged as highway=path or highway=footway)

> General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way 
> according to community consensus.  However, when it comes to the highway=* 
> tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical 
> classification, which is confusing. 
>
It is functional classification, except highway=motorway.

For simplicity and to avoid discussions people try to assign them some 
administrative
matches (maybe it works in UK as OSM copied UK administrative classification),
people try to assign physical classification.

There are unpaved highway=trunk, there are paved highway=track and so on.

> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is 
> highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is 
> too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical 
> classification).
>
Way used solely to access a private residence is always highway=service, 
service=driveway no matter
whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes wide.

Why you think that "too rough" driveway is no longer highway=service, 
service=driveway?
(if based on poor wiki docs then I would be happy to fix, if it is based on iD 
presets then
I would not recommend using iD presets to learn how OSM tagging works - there 
are
some problematic cases like peculiar description of highway=track that are 
deliberately 
unfixed)


> If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are data 
> users/consumers supposed to figure this out?
>
Use OSM Wiki, use taginfo, look at data - if confused ask on mailing list (or 
elsewhere).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?

No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly
cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes horses) are 3 to 4
meters wide, and occasionally even wider. Police sometimes drive cars on
these paths to access emergencies, and the bridges are strong enough for a
motor vehicle, but non-emergency vehicles are excluded and the paths are
clearly made for bikes and pedestrians.

> a way intended for walking, running, cycling is
highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its
width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified)
(physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service,
pedestrian, or something else.

It is incorrect to use the different highway values for physical
classification; the differences are functional. Usually the form follows
the function. E.g. a highway=pedestrian is generally a whole street where
motor vehicles are excluded (though they might enter for emergencies or at
certain times for deliveries).

> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).

The length and surface do not have any bearing on the classification, in
theory. While it's true that highway=track is sometimes misused for unpaved
driveways, this is generally an example of mistagging for the renderer,
since many styles do not render unpaved service roads differently,
unfortunately. It's possible for private service roads to be several
kilometers in length, though this is much more common for industrial or
business-related service roads, rather than residential driveways.

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact.
> We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are
needed.
I agree! For the way in question, I tagged its width (as well as
smoothness, max_speed, and a number of other tags) at the time it was
created.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
> So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some
similar value)?
>
> Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on
curve, or cycleway
> on a slope may be noticeably larger.
>
> There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a
pedestrian road,
> with varied opinions.
Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway,
width=4 would be an error?

General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way
according to community consensus.  However, when it comes to the highway=*
tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical
classification, which is confusing.

For example, a way intended for walking, running, cycling is
highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its
width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified)
(physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service,
pedestrian, or something else.

A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).

If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are
data users/consumers supposed to figure this out?

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Volker Schmidt]

Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact.
We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are needed.

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 21:35, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
> So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some
> similar value)?
>
> Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve,
> or cycleway
> on a slope may be noticeably larger.
>
> There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a
> pedestrian road,
> with varied opinions.
> ___
> 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] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com:

> So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some 
> similar value)?
>
Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve, or 
cycleway
on a slope may be noticeably larger.

There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a 
pedestrian road,
with varied opinions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:24 AM brad  wrote:
>
> I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that
common usage, or the wiki says this either.
It is not really "2 track" as its surface is uniformly graded and covered
with gravel from side to side (there are not separate ruts for the wheels
on each side of a four-wheeled vehicle).  Keep in mind that the imagery
currently available to OSM is all outdated in regards to this feature as it
was just constructed over the last couple of months.  I only know its
physical characteristics because I biked and ran it soon after it was open
to the public.

>
> "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. "
>
> I think the "etc" could mean a lot of things, such as mining roads, fire
roads, emergency access roads, etc
Well, it is not for any of these purposes, it is solely for recreational
use. We have a lot of paths, footways, and cycleways around here, paved and
unpaved, which are about the same width (~2.5m), e.g. [0]

>
> "If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be
tagged as highway=path."
That does not necessarily imply that "if the way is wide enough for a
two-track vehicle, it should be tagged as highway=track." The quote only
talks about changing tracks to paths, not paths to tracks.


> "highway=track - for roads for agricultural use, gravel roads in the
forest etc."
Again, it is not for agricultural use, and it is not in the forest, it is
in a city owned "natural area" (which isn't forested).

So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some
similar value)?

Mike

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48573535 - width is not tagged, but
first hand observation and available imagery shows this "cycleway" is about
3 meters wide.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[brad]

Perhaps highway=service?

I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that 
common usage, or the wiki says this either.


/"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. "

/

I think the "etc" could mean a lot of things, such as mining roads, fire 
roads, emergency access roads, etc /

/

/"If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be 
tagged as //highway 
=path 
//."/


and
/"Consider //highway 
=path 
//for ways so 
narrow that they can only accommodate pedestrians, equestrians, 
bicyclists, and motorcycles without sidecars."


and/

"highway =track 
 - for roads 
for agricultural use, gravel roads in the forest etc."


These quotes are from:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

On 5/21/20 7:06 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:


On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:11 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:

>
> There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'.
>
> Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example 
'motor_vehicle=private, comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for 
maintenance only'
While it is not (yet) tagged that way, in fact  motor vehicles are not 
allowed, except for official park vehicles.


___
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] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:11 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'.
>
> Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example
'motor_vehicle=private, comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for
maintenance only'
While it is not (yet) tagged that way, in fact  motor vehicles are not
allowed, except for official park vehicles.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Warin]

On 21/5/20 4:28 am, Mike Thompson wrote:

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:

However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or 
footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car or 
emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as highway=cycleway 
or =footway or =path if they are designed and designated for pedestrians or 
bicycles.

It is gravel.  Rough width is 2.5 meters (I tagged it as such).


Do you have an example of a particular path or road which is debatable?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/798886886#map=16/40.4656/-105.1320
I mapped this originally as highway=path, it was changed by another
user to highway=track.  I just changed it back this morning.

Note that this is a brand new  trail that just opened to the public
within the last few weeks.  Imagery currently available in OSM editing
software will not show the trail as it now exists. There was a track
there previously, and the new trail overlaid parts of it, those that
it didn't overlay are still mapped as "track."



There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'.

Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example 'motor_vehicle=private, 
comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for maintenance only'

  

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
> >
> > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or 
> > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car 
> > or emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as 
> > highway=cycleway or =footway or =path if they are designed and designated 
> > for pedestrians or bicycles.
> It is gravel.  Rough width is 2.5 meters (I tagged it as such).
>
> > Do you have an example of a particular path or road which is debatable?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/798886886#map=16/40.4656/-105.1320
> I mapped this originally as highway=path, it was changed by another
> user to highway=track.  I just changed it back this morning.
Note that this is a brand new  trail that just opened to the public
within the last few weeks.  Imagery currently available in OSM editing
software will not show the trail as it now exists. There was a track
there previously, and the new trail overlaid parts of it, those that
it didn't overlay are still mapped as "track."

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or 
> footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car or 
> emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as 
> highway=cycleway or =footway or =path if they are designed and designated for 
> pedestrians or bicycles.
It is gravel.  Rough width is 2.5 meters (I tagged it as such).

> Do you have an example of a particular path or road which is debatable?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/798886886#map=16/40.4656/-105.1320
I mapped this originally as highway=path, it was changed by another
user to highway=track.  I just changed it back this morning.

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

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> does that make it highway=track if it was constructed for, and
its primary and intended use is for, recreation and not for forestry
or agriculture access?

The tag highway=track should be used for road which are primarily for
agricultural or forestry use.

It's also possible to use highway=service for narrow roads which are used
by 2-track (4+ wheel) motor vehicles.

However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or
footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car
or emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as
highway=cycleway or =footway or =path if they are designed and designated
for pedestrians or bicycles.

(In towns and villages, wide streets for pedestrians are mapped as
highway=pedestrian. Usually emergency motor vehicles have access, and there
might be access for delivery trucks at some hours)

Do you have an example of a particular path or road which is debatable?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:10 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Just because a trail is wide enough to accommodate a four wheeled
> vehicle does that make it highway=track if it was constructed for, and
> its primary and intended use is for, recreation and not for forestry
> or agriculture access?
>
> 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