On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:59 AM Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > > "Richie Kennedy" <richiekenned...@gmail.com> writes: > > > To me, "unpaved" includes gravel surfaced roads (which is the > > predominant surface type of non-state highways in rural Kansas). I'm > > not inclined to mark every gravel road in Kansas as 'track' > > Unpaved does not at all imply track. If it's a real road, open to the > public, with a name, and expected to be used by normal vehicles, it's > not a track. track is about something that is physically less than a > proper (even unpaved) road. > > It's perfectly reasonable to have an unpaved highway=secondary in > rural areas, if that's one of the major roads around. > >
Agree. The OSM definintion of "track" is clear on this - "represents roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc" and "Do not use tracks to represent public unpaved roads in built-up areas". If it's an open road with some kind of designation, then it's some level of highway, not a track. Using a surface=* tag is crucial here. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
