On 10 December 2012 15:11, Gregory Williams <greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk> wrote: > I think that changing the class of the road to service isn’t the best way of > recording the data. These roads will quite often legally be an unclassified > highway and changing the class away from that just isn’t accurate.
Although I'd agree with your general point, it should be noted that there are also routes which are physically farm tracks that are technically unclassified highways. Many of the routes shown on OS maps as "Other Route with Public Access" will fall into this category. Some of these routes may have a reasonable surface, others will be terrible and only suitable for very rugged 4x4s. I think most people would agree that it would be rather silly to use highway=unclassified highway for these rural tracks that definitely don't look like normal roads. Instead I've used highway=track based on the physical appearance, and then added designation=unclassified_highway to record the legal classification. While it's certainly less clear-cut what to do for routes which are surfaced and appear to be normal roads (albeit rather narrow) the same technique could be used. Using highway=service + designation=unclassified_highway might be a useful way to tag these. I also like the idea of using motor_vehicle=unsuitable. If we are to use this, it would be good to document it in the wiki. Presumably it corresponds to "legally yes you can, but in reality you'd be advised not to try". (If this isn't the case, then we could probably do with another access value that does express this.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
