On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:59 PM, David Findlay <[email protected]> wrote: > I contributed quite a bit of stuff locally mapped with GPS(usually multiple > tracks on multiple different days, averaged) a few years back. I notice now > there seems to be quite some disdain for GPS tracks. > > I've recently recorded various bush walking, biking and 4wd trails, most of > which aren't easily visible from aerial imagery. Is this ok? I've just uploadd > a change set before with a few drains that weren't marked and some bush trails > suitable for walking or cycling. I marked them as "Tracks" with cars, > motorcyles and stuff set to no. > > How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks,
Certainly not disdained upon, although I would prefer tracing imagery for areas with accurate high-res imagery like nearmap, the GPS tracks are still most welcome, especially so in other areas. I generally reserve highway=track for ways wide enough for a car to traverse, and as per the wiki are "Roads for agricultural use, gravel roads in the forest etc." If they are only wide enough for walking or cycling I would use highway=path. I thought foot, bicycle, motorcycle, motorcar = no was for where it is signed as not allowed rather than you would find it difficult to traverse in a... On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Mark Pulley <[email protected]> wrote: >> How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks, > highway=track; surface=unpaved; if 4wd only then also add 4wd_only=yes >From experience I've found this is really hard to determine. Often the road quality varies and I don't really want to subdivide 30km of track into 10m segments where some are 4wd_only and some aren't. I find it hard to subjectively decide how small a non-4wd only section is worth splitting up as a segment. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
