I was tagging tracks in the desert, and ran across some similar issues. Some of the tracks are abandoned because they were no longer needed/ wanted (officially) in a wilderness park, or heavily damaged or unmantainable because of the road's position in a ravine. But people who want to use the old road with very high off-road skill, can drive them without flipping or destroying their off-road 4x4. 1m gullies and boulders make up sections of the road, requiring a bit of rock crawling to get through.
This is not in a sports context, but necessity - access down a 1 km long ravine from a plateau in the badlands is the only way to continue north into the next (easily accessed) valley, without having to drive around the mountains for 3 hours. But you could get your truck stuck/ flipped/ totaled because the condition of the road is so unbelievably bad. It is beyond having 4x4 - it is having the skill and risk acceptance required to go drive the road correctly. And yes, it is marked on USGS maps as a track. Javbw > On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 2014-10-27 15:22 GMT+01:00 Ronnie Soak <[email protected]>: >> It may be usable on foot if dried out over a long time or if frozen. > > > yes, this is a general problem with unpaved ways that usability might > (depending on the actual composition and grain size) heavily depend on the > weather conditions, especially humidity and temperature. > > >> >> tracktype does not offer a solution for this, as worse grades are described >> as being closer to undisturbed nature, while the opposite is the case here. > > > actually tracktype is not about "undisturbed nature", it is about how much > the way is built up and how much not, in combination with actual smoothness / > usability (i.e. it is somehow subjective). In your case it would probably be > a tracktype=grade5 because otherwise the way would not have been damaged that > much ;-) > > >> >> sac_scale comes to mind, but this is a track not a path and it has nothing >> to do with alpine hiking. > > > +1, wouldn't use it > > >> >> track_visibility does also not cover this, as these tracks are if anything >> MORE visible now. > > > +1 > > >> >> Even surface or smoothness can't describe this, as simply tagging this bumpy >> and muddy does not do the situation justice. (And they are not picked up by >> enough renders/routers, for which we of course do not tag.) > > > IMHO surface can still be useful to describe the surface and smoothness to > describe the lack of smoothness. > > I'd go for surface=earth and tracktype=grade5 and maybe a smoothness > indication (not sure what are currently suggested values, maybe very_horrible > ;-) ). When the surface material is soft the unevenness might fix itself with > the rain in the next months anyway. > > What do you mean by "unusable by foot"? Is this about getting your shoes and > trousers dirty or would you have to climb "artificial cliffs"? > > cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
