Personally, I'm not too fussed about mapping to suit trail bikes in the bush - they go anywhere they feel like anyway :-) The main advantage of mapping it as a path is that 4WDs won't get routed down them.
However, while the OSM definition for path does include the words " and not intended for motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately". Does "unless tagged so separately" mean you could add the tag "motorcycles=yes" to the path ?? I also wouldn't worry about how difficult it would be to walk or ride a bicycle on a motor bike path - as long as it is possible for athletic & skilled people to do so. Even Class 5 walking tracks are classified as paths. There are all sorts of tags that can be used to classify the difficulty of the "track" (that I'm not familiar with). Ian >Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 12:39:30 +1100 >From: "EON4wd" <i...@eon4wd.com.au> >To: <ianst...@iinet.net.au>, <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." > specifically motor bikes >That would be logical, but motor bikes are classified as a vehicle and are the only ones using this 'path' which ends up being mapped as a track via the satellite picture. >Path does not imply motor bikes. >Legally it is allowed to be used as a path, but motor vehicles are not allowed. >The motor bike tracks would be difficult to use as a walking track and also for a bicycle. >If the tracks were reclassified as a path, it would at least show something that is on the ground plus also imply that it is not allowed for vehicles. >What if the motor bike track is legal, how would you then classify the track if it is not wide enough for any car? >Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
