Ah, I think I've let the mapping of tracks local to me influence my stance too much. And for context of my interest here, my plan was to bikepack the Track but that got put off due to covid and family.
The Australian guidelines don't say much about =tertiary, but bouncing over to the main =tertiary page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary: "Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate traffic which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets. For quieter linking roads, consider using highway=unclassified instead." Given this along with your points, leaving it set as unclassified is likely the right call. And this discussion so far has modified my overall view to be: - tertiary: roads that are used as genuine links between two towns - unclassified: if driving it is more a recreational activity than a need for a thoroughfare, even if it links two localities - track: more limited access for whatever reason: drivability, lesser usage, gated, spurs from unclassified, fire trails, etc I'd agree with 4WD recommended, if coming from the south most camp sites > can be accessed with little trouble in a reasonable vehicle. > The signage says 4WD-only in all the photos I've seen. But I've also driven on the initial portion of 4WD-only track in a 2WD. Is the solution to note the signage somehow, but tag the actual ways as to their genuine accessibility ie south section = recommended, north section = required? (Back in the early days of GPS navigation I was routed out of Wombeyan Caves on the eastern side, which was an... experience.) On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 19:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 21/2/23 14:42, Josh Marshall wrote: > > Australian road tagging guidelines at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads > arguably > override the general OSM guidelines, and they read: > > highway=track: "Service and access roads that aren't part of the general > road network. Generally not paved, often not public access for > vehicles."... in rural "Fire trails, forest drives, 4WD tracks, and similar > roads. > > highway=unclassified is: "Minor roads that are neither tertiary or > residential roads. Not generally through routes." > > Given that, I'd argue =track is the right option. > > > The Bridal Track is open to the public, part of the general road network > and a through route. It would never have been reopened if it was not for > public money. at lest not reopened to the public. > > So from that you could say tertiary. I'd not go that far. > > > A tangent, but I'm rather happy that iD _*finally_* fixed their English > description for =track (it included "unmaintained" for a long time; many > were quite annoyed at the original change to include that)... and I can't > find any discussion about why they finally gave in and reverted it! Vested > interest, since it along with =path are likely my two most used, given I > map a lot of bush with fire trails and run/ride singletrack. > > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 09:23, cleary <o...@97k.com> wrote: > >> >> The name should not constrain the classification of the highway (e.g. >> Dowling Track, Ooodnadatta Track). And, as I've commented previously in >> other threads, the DCS NSW Base Map can be quite outdated. >> >> However, a quick look at a YouTube video suggests that the Bridle Track >> should still be tagged as 4WD only (it was signposted as such and probably >> still is). Wikipedia reports that part of the route is new, apparently a >> diversion around the landslide that blocked the old track at Monaghans >> Bluff. I'd prefer not to change the OSM tags etc until someone surveys the >> route. >> > > The Bridal Track has been brought up to a very high standard ... so the > pollies would have no trouble opening ! It will not stay that way - I have > been told no water truck was used in the constructions .. > > I'd agree with 4WD recommended, if coming from the south most camp sites > can be accessed with little trouble in a reasonable vehicle. The problem is > the hill going upto Hill End .. t6hat can get lost of erosion .. and it is > narrow with blind corners. > > I do know the Track fairly well from a number of trips. The diversion > looks to be less of an obstruction compared to the more difficult bits, at > leas until it is weathered.. > > >> >> >> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, at 9:17 PM, Warin wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > This track is now continuous having been closed due to a rock fall and >> > road collapse at Monaghans Bluff. >> > >> > >> > Given the importance of the road and that it is not really a 'track' in >> > the OSM sense (Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses) ... and >> > that the DCS Base Map places it at least tertiary level I would think >> > that all of this 'track' be classified in OSM as 'unclassified'. >> > >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
