On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:38 PM brad <bradha...@fastmail.com> 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.

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to