Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

On 2014-05-19 at 19:05:30 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> There are almost 8m highway=track objects in the database (thanks taginfo!),
> third only to =residential and =service (thanks TIGER!).
> 
> I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in
> their home countries.

In Italy if I saw a track I would assume that unless there is 
a sign or a gate I would be legally allowed to drive on it, 
but I would probably have no reason to do it, since it would 
only lead to farms or woods, and even if it wasn't a dead end 
there would be a better road to the same destination.

There are lots of tracks that do have signs and gates preventing 
access to the general public, probably more than other types of 
highway (except maybe residential) but in that case I would expect 
this to be specified on OSM with proper access tags

As for routing, the consequence of all this is that I would 
expect tracks to be considered for routing (if access keys allows it) 
but only at a very low priority.

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

[Volker Schmidt]

I would like to add a cyclist's comment for Italy. In the Po valley we have
numerous waterways of all sizes many of which have paths/tracks/roads on
the embankment.
For cyclists there are three kinds of problems, regarding access: one is
legal, the other two are physical:

1) Many have the sign Access forbidden for all vehicles (white disk with
red rim), including bicycles. In practice in most cases bicycles are
tolerated, In many cases even official bicycle routes use such
tracks/roads. There is no consensus, afaik, on how to tag these. I use
bicycle=permissive.

2) Many of these tracks are in many points  blocked by barriers, which a
normal cyclist or pedestrian can pass on the side, but where a tandem or a
cycle with trailer (or a wheelchair) does not pass. I try to tag them as
barriers with width indication, but most of them are even not present in
the data.

3) Many cycle paths or cycle-pedestrian paths are blocked by chicane-type
bicycle barriers (barriers of the same type and dimensions that are used
here in Italy to prevent motorcycles from using cycle paths are used
elsewhere, for example in Germany, to prevent bicycles to use a
pedestrian-only path). These barriers are annoying, sometimes dangerous,
but in particular prevent in many cases the passage of tandems and
cycle-trailers.

Apart from that, tracks suffer from a lack of specification in the tags of
their suitability for bicycle use (tracktype, smoothness), but that is
another problem.




> In Italy if I saw a track I would assume that unless there is
> a sign or a gate I would be legally allowed to drive on it,
> but I would probably have no reason to do it, since it would
> only lead to farms or woods, and even if it wasn't a dead end
> there would be a better road to the same destination.
>
> There are lots of tracks that do have signs and gates preventing
> access to the general public, probably more than other types of
> highway (except maybe residential) but in that case I would expect
> this to be specified on OSM with proper access tags
>
> As for routing, the consequence of all this is that I would
> expect tracks to be considered for routing (if access keys allows it)
> but only at a very low priority.
>
> --
> Elena ``of Valhalla''
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>




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

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-05-20 0:33 GMT+02:00 David Bannon :

> I Australia, 'track' generally means a road that is badly maintained or
> not maintained at all. Almost certainly unsealed. Some short and some
> quite long. Some of the longer ones are important connecting or tourist
> roads.
>


In my opinion you shouldn't use the osm tags highway=track for important
connecting roads or tourist roads, even if you call them "tracks" in
everyday live, and even if they aren't paved. Better use the highway tag
according to its definition (importance of connection) and use something
like unclassified, tertiary, secondary, primary together with surface-tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

[Dave F.]

On 19/05/2014 19:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this 
implies in their home countries.


To me, in the UK, highway=track is an unmetalled road that can be 
accessed & has been used by motor vehicles, but on it's own does not 
imply any access rights. I always indicate those using sub-tags such as 
foot=*, horse=* etc.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions 
has suggestions for a few countries, but is missing some pretty major 
ones, such as the US and the Netherlands.


Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing is missing byway, a 
recognised highway classification.


Dave F.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

[Fernando Trebien]

Following from this discussion about rendering
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110#issuecomment-31613867),
it should make some sense to assume that tracks with
tracktype=grade1/grade2 are physically capable of traffic and
therefore usable/accessible (though at lower speed and greater care)
unless other tags restrict it. So, it would make sense to restrict
them by country only when the local community assumes they show up in
a specific context that restricts access, such as private property
(farms) or state controlled areas (forest) or so.

Tracks are usually physically possible for mountain bikes, and
probably to city bikes too (though not quite adequate), as well as
wheelchair on tracktype=grade1, so they would only be inaccessible if
forbidden by law.

Btw, I'm in Brazil. Here the popular opinion is that the single major
difference between OSM's tracks and paths worldwide is the physical
possibility of standard motor vehicle traffic (very inadequate or
simply impossible on paths, but possible, though perhaps difficult, on
tracks). If it's private/restricted by law, we also add
access=private/no (similar to service ways). Surely in countries where
tracks are assumed to be private, one would add
access=yes/permissive/destination for the exceptions.

On that list in the wiki, only Denmark restricts access to tracks
completely. I find interesting that in Germany there is ongoing
discussion about making them "destination" - that should make them
routable at least for departure/arrival.

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Matthijs Melissen
 wrote:
> On 19 May 2014 19:05, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>> I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in
>> their home countries.
>
> In Luxembourg, highway=track normally cannot be used by vehicles. Most
> of them have currently no access tag.
>
> -- Matthijs
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

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

[Tagging] "byway" vs "track" ( was: highway=track access )

[SomeoneElse]

Dave F. wrote:


Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing is missing byway, a 
recognised highway classification.


Dave F.


Is there a notable physical difference between a "byway" in England and 
Wales and a "track"?  "Byway Open to All Traffic" and "Restricted Byway" 
are both legal definitions (i.e. "designation" tag), but is there a 
physical difference too?


The one class that I'd possibly suggest as being missing are quad-bike 
trails used by farmers in upland areas, but I really don't have a good 
suggestion as to what to tag those as.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 12:58 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> In my opinion you shouldn't use the osm tags highway=track for 
> important connecting roads or tourist roads, even if you call them 
> "tracks" in everyday live, and even if they aren't paved. Better 
> use the highway tag according to its definition (importance of 
> connection) and use something like unclassified, tertiary, secondary, 
> primary together with surface-tags.


Sorry Martin, must disagree.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype was intended to apply
to all roads. Please see the wiki page, note it complains that renderers
treat it  "elaboration on just highway=track, which is contradictory to
its proposal."

The definition of highway= is quite clear, it should be based on the
intended purpose of the road. So [unclassified, tertiary,
secondary ...]. That gives no indication of its state or likely
maintenance level. That means something like tracktype=, a "measure of
how well-maintained a track or other minor road".

Now, I object to seeing reference to "minor road" there, think thats
new ! Please remember that roads around the world vary over quite a wide
range, its very easy for people who live in places where all roads are
well maintained to dismiss the importance of poorly maintained roads, or
ones not maintained at all.

There has been a lot (and I mean "a lot") of discussion about a new and
better tag or redefining an existing tag to warn potential users of what
may a dangerous road to some people. However, little progress has been
made. I consider it very important in a large percentage of the worlds
land area. However, it does not interest most of the world's mappers !

David 

> 
> ___
> 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] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?

[André Pirard]

On 2014-05-19 19:27, Matthijs Melissen wrote :
> If you feel strong about it, I would encourage you to open a new issue
> on https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto, the issue
> tracker of the CartoCSS used on openstreetmap.org
> . In general, any new issues with the
> rendering of the map on openstreetmap.org 
> should be reported there. Please note that the Mapnik category on trac
> is obsolete - we are in the process of migrating old issues.
Well, only strongly ;-)
Yes, I finally opened this issue there on github
,
closing the subject here.
I think that fixing that would make more pleasant tracks & paths map
reading and ... mostly mapping.
Without a 40 KiB message limit, I could post real size images there, but
... they reduced them :-(

Cheers,

André.



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