On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> On 09/09/2009 12:05 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: > > yes, yes, yes - this is the most sane summary of the road/track debate > I've > > seen in quite a while. Of course, it also reopens the track/path > argument, > > but I'll leave that to others to battle out. > > How is there even an argument there? track is for cars and always has > been, while path is for not-cars and always has been. > > -Alex Mauer “hawke” > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > yes, paths are non-motor vehicles. This is not to say it isn't possible to drive motor vehicles on it, just not designed for it or in common use. Basically only for servicing or emergences. I wasn't thinking about that one when I wrote the lase e-mail. As for tracks having addresses or names, I would probably push to use highway=unclasified instead of track. Or even rethink it as residential or service if they fit better and add other tags like surface to match reality. I added this to the bottom of the very long http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging for now. -- Dale Puch
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
