Of course no ordinary car is going to use those tracks. Keep in main the track definition:
"Roads for agricultural use, forest tracks etc." Cars are not agricultural vehicles and they should not be used as a reference when we are talking about tracks. By agricultural vehicles, the main and almost exclusive vehicle that use those tracks I show pictures of, I mean: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Roteco_Supertriss_430_walking_tractor_with_trailer.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Oldtimerumzug_Aidenbach_2013-08-18_-_Holder_Ag3.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/New_Holland_T7040.JPG Most of the time tracks are short and are used by land owners to get to their lands wich here are very small. This size is not uncommon: http://i59.tinypic.com/28vx4yw.jpg All properties there have a track to get to them with a tractor and no one will consider them highway=path. Maxspeed is meaningless. Avg speed can be less than 5 Km/h, but varies a lot from track to track. 2014-03-21 0:34 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com>: > Vali, those are some of the nastiest tracks I've ever seen. No ordinary > car is going to be traversing those and even most 4WD will be forced to > drive very slowly in order to avoid the bigger, protruding rocks. As for > tracktype, there is no "grade" type to describe them unless we extend the > grade scheme to 6 or 7 or beyond, as many suggested, or alternatively, > create new tags 4WD_only=yes/no, and possibly HC_4WD_only=yes/no. It's also > obvious that surface of "rocky" needs to be dealt with somehow. Most of > these have a "very horrible" surface. Setting aside the fact that maxspeed > refers to _legal_ maximums, I would be tempted to add a maxspeed=5 or lower > as well to help routers make decisions. > > I have incorrectly used maxspeed in the past to suggest the suitability of > a road for travel. I have also used surface_condition, as in > surface_condition=Rough_less_than_40kph in the past. There were many > examples of this usage in Taginfo and I was reluctant to use tracktype to > describe a highway when I first started mapping. > > What about some sort of speed tag, a new one, perhaps trackspeed or > comfortable_speed? > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:36 AM, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>wrote: > >> >> Vali, great contribution to the discussion. >> >> The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused >> a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' ! >> >> tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info >> for bike or walkers. >> >> I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are >> excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word >> "smoothness" and the assigned values. Sigh.... >> >> Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its >> called "tagging for renderers", punishable by death but happens all the >> time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=. Some evil people >> consider this fact when choosing which tag to use. >> >> Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ? If >> promoted it could be whats needed ? >> >> David >> >> >> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > >> > >> > I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks "the right way" but >> > after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed >> > are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here >> > are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance >> > is almost none. >> > >> > >> > I have some pics to show what I am talking about: >> > >> > http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg >> > http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg >> > >> > >> > These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great, >> > but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track >> > over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be >> > eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in >> > the wiki) >> > >> > http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg >> > http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg >> > >> > >> > These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller >> > and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter. >> > tracktype? surface? >> > >> > http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg >> > http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg >> > >> > >> > This kind of track is often found in places with long-time >> > settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They >> > tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is >> > smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or >> > a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just >> > gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important, >> > their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles >> > there are small tractors or motorbikes. >> > >> > >> > Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths >> > as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas. >> > >> > Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time. >> > >> > http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg >> > >> > >> > This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard >> > and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account >> > the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe? >> > >> > >> > Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the >> > "drivability" of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can >> > use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough >> > sometimes. >> > >> > >> > Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the >> > list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the >> > things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time >> > tracks are widely used. >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri <lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi>: >> > David Bannon wrote: >> > >"Should I use this road or not ?" >> > > tracktype= does claim to use that approach >> > >> > >> > It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at >> > documenting. The part about "how well maintained" >> > on the Key:tracktype page was added later after >> > the values. There is a connection, but tracktype >> > wasn't meant to be about "usable or not", but about >> > the most influential attribute of the road construction >> > (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes), >> > of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the >> > conditions road users see on any ways not up to >> > the highway standards of the present day. >> > >> > So it's a description of a scale from "hard materials only" >> > to "soft materials only". The connection to "maintained" >> > is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a >> > good approximation of the maintenance, but there can >> > be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?) >> > maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on >> > exposed solid rock is "hard materials only" even if nobody >> > ever raised a finger to "build" the way. >> > >> > A user can deduce expectations from the combination >> > of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and >> > local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=* >> > if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users. >> > >> > There can not be anything beyond "soft materials only", >> > that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively used >> > the tag to describe their assessment of "should i use or >> > not", the meaning of the tag has diverged from the >> > use in other regions, and we'll never know which one >> > was meant. (Luckily, there's seldom any major difference >> > - it's probably be the rare extreme cases that can be in >> > disagreement.) >> > >> > If mappers want to tag a subjective "should i use it", >> > it should be some other tag if the hard/soft materials >> > scale doesn't suit them. But for which road user? >> > >> > -- >> > Alv >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > > -- > Dave Swarthout > Homer, Alaska > Chiang Mai, Thailand > Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
