track smoothness/quality

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

track smoothness/quality

brad
A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
Improved Road
Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
Four Wheel Drive
Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest gets a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is a mess in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not impossible to render a good map.

As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to distinguish between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel drive road.    Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's dirt/unpaved/ground.

Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: " To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype=*. "
But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the western US, since the first sentence of the description is Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.  
It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively (grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the smoothness tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see roads that are clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2 and some graded gravel roads tagged as grade2.   
Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting from scratch that's what I would prefer. 

As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and de-emphasize  tracktype=*
2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage about high clearance or 4 wheel drive.    There is some discussion on the key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.  
3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion page that is what many are doing.

Thoughts?






_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Mateusz Konieczny-3

3 lip 2019, 03:10 od [hidden email]:
1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and de-emphasize  tracktype=*
Mentioning also smoothness tag is
perfectly fine and such edits can be
fine without notification mail.

Usually such mails are necessary only
in cases where there is some conflict
on Wiki when both sides consider
differing opinions as a clear consensus.

2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype description (or de-emphasize it)
I am dubious about redefining extremely
popular tags. For start - can you link
some photos of places where current
definition is a problem?

The best would be photos on licenses
allowing upload to OSM Wiki or
Wikimedia Commons.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Tomas Straupis
2019-07-03, tr, 08:04 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype description (or de-emphasize it)
> I am dubious about redefining extremely
> popular tags. <...>

  How come? You are pushing the changing of entire water tagging schema!

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Warin
In reply to this post by brad
On 03/07/19 11:10, brad wrote:

> A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
> Improved Road
> Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
> Four Wheel Drive
> Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
> Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest
> gets a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is
> a mess in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not
> impossible to render a good map.
>
> As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to
> distinguish between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel
> drive road.    Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's
> dirt/unpaved/ground.

There is use of 4wd_only=yes/no see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:4wd_only

And yes the wiki/osm is a bit of a mess.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by brad
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:10:24 -0600
brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
 

> Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: "
> To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype>=*. "
> But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the
> western US, since the first sentence of the description is
> Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but
> the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be
> smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.
> It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively
> (grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the
> smoothness tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see
> roads that are clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2
> and some graded gravel roads tagged as grade2.
> Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting
> from scratch that's what I would prefer.
>
> As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
> 1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and
> de-emphasize  tracktype=*
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the
> tracktype description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage
> about high clearance or 4 wheel drive.    There is some discussion on
> the key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.
> 3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion
> page that is what many are doing.

Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:

1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
"easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
four-wheel-drive vehicle required".

2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
between the tracks.

According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
anything from "grade1" to "grade5".

--
Mark

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis


sent from a phone

> On 3. Jul 2019, at 07:16, Tomas Straupis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> How come? You are pushing the changing of entire water tagging schema!


this is an off topic comment here and is not comparable because with water tagging the meaning of tags should not be changed, but different tags (compatible because different key) would be additionally added.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by brad
I believe smoothness=* is very important in dry areas, including most
of the western USA in summertime (when most people visit remote areas
on track roads).

But a road that is very smooth, dry clay in summer, for example an
unimproved track across a dry lakebed, will become impassible mud
after a hard rainstorm if the surface is unimproved clay or silt.

Here in Indonesia, I prefer to ride my 20 inch wheel bicycle across
very bumpy track roads filled with with rough river stones rather than
the smooth dirt on the side, after it rains, because the dirt become
slippery mud, but the rocks stay just bumpy (and slightly slippery).

So fully defining the condition of an unpaved road requires use of
surface=*, tracktype=* and smoothness=* - unfortunately the later two
can be hard to define clearly.

Tracktype is a little easier to verify, if you take "solid" to mean
"stones, rocks, pebbles and gravel" and "soft" to mean "sand, silt,
clay and organic matter", you can estimate whether the majority of the
roadway is made of one or the other.

Certainly tracktype=grade2 (mainly gravel and stones) is quite
obviously different than grade4 and grade 5 (mainly or totally
unimproved soil), though the exact cut-off between grades may be hard
to define.

This means that some tracktype=grade5 are very nice, smooth surfaces
in dry weather (that dry lake or salt playa for example), and only
impassible after rain, but that's still quite important information,
even in Arizona or Nevada.

Joseph

On 7/3/19, brad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
> Improved Road
> Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
> Four Wheel Drive
> Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
> Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest gets
> a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is a mess
> in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not impossible
> to render a good map.
>
> As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to distinguish
> between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel drive road.
> Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's dirt/unpaved/ground.
>
> Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: " To
> describe the quality of a track, see tracktype
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype>=*. "
> But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the
> western US, since the first sentence of the description is
> Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but
> the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be
> smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.
> It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively
> (grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the smoothness
> tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see roads that are
> clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2 and some graded
> gravel roads tagged as grade2.
> Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting from
> scratch that's what I would prefer.
>
> As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
> 1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and
> de-emphasize  tracktype=*
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype
> description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage about high
> clearance or 4 wheel drive.    There is some discussion on the
> key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.
> 3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion
> page that is what many are doing.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

marc marc
In reply to this post by brad
Le 03.07.19 à 03:10, brad a écrit :
> Thoughts?

4) use smoothness if it suits your needs better
without changing the meaning of a tag used elsewhere in your region
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

marc marc
In reply to this post by brad
Le 03.07.19 à 03:10, brad a écrit :
> Thoughts?

4) use smoothness if it suits your needs better
without changing the meaning of a tag used elsewhere in your region
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

brad
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
Here's one, 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/agj4njek1r35vnz/2018-10-03-13.06.54r.jpg?dl=0
Maybe gets some maintenance every 10 or 20 years or so.  It is probably never soft, so it doesn't fit any tracktype definition.   It is still used for a couple of  mines (worked by 1 or 2 people), but mostly recreational use.   This is higher altitude than most, but not unusual in the western US.

I think tracktype as specified is only useful for a small portion of the world.  Useful for flat, wet regions.


On 7/2/19 11:02 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
...

2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype description (or de-emphasize it)
I am dubious about redefining extremely
popular tags. For start - can you link
some photos of places where current
definition is a problem?

The best would be photos on licenses
allowing upload to OSM Wiki or
Wikimedia Commons.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

brad
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner
What wiki are you looking at?   At
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says
"Soft.
Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
surrounding soil. "

What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.

Brad

On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:

> Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
>
> 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
> any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
> side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
> "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
> four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
>
> 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
> for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
> only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
> between the tracks.
>
> According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
> unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
> terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
> soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
> muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
> anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Joseph Eisenberg
I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while it might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with sufficient clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of unimproved clay, silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply impassable when it rains? But I’m not an expert on 4wd.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
What wiki are you looking at?   At
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says
"Soft.
Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
surrounding soil. "

What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.

Brad

On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
>
> 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
> any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
> side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
> "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
> four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
>
> 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
> for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
> only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
> between the tracks.
>
> According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
> unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
> terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
> soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
> muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
> anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

brad
That is true if the terrain is agreeable.  Often it is steep and a very loose rocky surface so 4wd is necessary.  Even if it isn't very steep, since it is not maintained very often, if at all, erosion creates hazards in the road also requiring 4wd or at least a very high clearance vehicle.

"Tracktype is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is..."


On 7/6/19 6:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while it might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with sufficient clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of unimproved clay, silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply impassable when it rains? But I’m not an expert on 4wd.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
What wiki are you looking at?   At
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says
"Soft.
Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
surrounding soil. "

What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.

Brad

On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
>
> 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
> any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
> side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
> "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
> four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
>
> 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
> for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
> only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
> between the tracks.
>
> According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
> unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
> terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
> soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
> muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
> anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by brad



7 lip 2019, 01:57 od [hidden email]:
What wiki are you looking at?   At https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says
"Soft.
Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as surrounding soil. "

What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.
There is already "almost". I think that it would
be ok to use different criteria for road on a bare rock.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by brad
> *"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is..."

"... particularly regarding surface firmness."

In contrast, on Map Features it says tracktype is "To describe the
quality of the surface".

The maintenance frequency of a road is not directly observable, so
it's good if this tag is defined in a way that relates to the road
itself.

This was the original description for grade5 in early 2008:

"unpaved track; subtle tire marks, lack of hardcore, Soft with low
grip, subtle on the landscape."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:tracktype&oldid=71778

Until July 2018 the grade5 description mentioned that the materials
should be "uncompacted":

"Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard materials, uncompacted,
with surface of soil/sand/grass."

Should "not compacted" be added back to the description, perhaps?

Joseph

On 7/7/19, brad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That is true if the terrain is agreeable.  Often it is steep and a very
> loose rocky surface so 4wd is necessary.  Even if it isn't very steep,
> since it is not maintained very often, if at all, erosion creates
> hazards in the road also requiring 4wd or at least a very high clearance
> vehicle.
>
> *"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor
> road is..."
>
>
> On 7/6/19 6:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or
>> naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while
>> it might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with
>> sufficient clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of
>> unimproved clay, silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply
>> impassable when it rains? But I’m not an expert on 4wd.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     What wiki are you looking at?   At
>>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype, grade5 says
>>     "Soft.
>>     Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
>>     surrounding soil. "
>>
>>     What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
>>     Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.
>>
>>     Brad
>>
>>     On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
>>     > Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
>>     >
>>     > 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut
>> down
>>     > any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
>>     > side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
>>     > "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
>>     > four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
>>     >
>>     > 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route
>> repeatedly
>>     > for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older
>>     ones are
>>     > only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central
>> ridge
>>     > between the tracks.
>>     >
>>     > According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost
>>     always an
>>     > unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as
>>     surrounding
>>     > terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since
>>     the local
>>     > soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
>>     > muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at
>>     random as
>>     > anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
>>     >
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tagging mailing list
>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by brad


sent from a phone

> On 7. Jul 2019, at 01:51, brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It is still used for a couple of  mines (worked by 1 or 2 people), but mostly recreational use.


if this is an access road to mines it might not be a track but a service road?

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Warin
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On 07/07/19 17:40, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

>> *"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is..."
> "... particularly regarding surface firmness."
>
> In contrast, on Map Features it says tracktype is "To describe the
> quality of the surface".
>
> The maintenance frequency of a road is not directly observable, so
> it's good if this tag is defined in a way that relates to the road
> itself.
>
> This was the original description for grade5 in early 2008:
>
> "unpaved track; subtle tire marks, lack of hardcore, Soft with low
> grip, subtle on the landscape."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:tracktype&oldid=71778
>
> Until July 2018 the grade5 description mentioned that the materials
> should be "uncompacted":
>
> "Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard materials, uncompacted,
> with surface of soil/sand/grass."
>
> Should "not compacted" be added back to the description, perhaps?

There is a visibility tag.

So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.

Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all that usefull.

I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.

Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground clearance.
Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.

Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road that has been compacted.
Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.

But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard, smooth and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a skating ring (wet clay).

And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on top .. with black goo underneath if you break through.

>
> Joseph
>
> On 7/7/19, brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> That is true if the terrain is agreeable.  Often it is steep and a very
>> loose rocky surface so 4wd is necessary.  Even if it isn't very steep,
>> since it is not maintained very often, if at all, erosion creates
>> hazards in the road also requiring 4wd or at least a very high clearance
>> vehicle.
>>
>> *"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor
>> road is..."
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/19 6:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>> I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or
>>> naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while
>>> it might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with
>>> sufficient clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of
>>> unimproved clay, silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply
>>> impassable when it rains? But I’m not an expert on 4wd.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      What wiki are you looking at?   At
>>>      https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype, grade5 says
>>>      "Soft.
>>>      Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
>>>      surrounding soil. "
>>>
>>>      What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
>>>      Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.
>>>
>>>      Brad
>>>
>>>      On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
>>>      > Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
>>>      >
>>>      > 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut
>>> down
>>>      > any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
>>>      > side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
>>>      > "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
>>>      > four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
>>>      >
>>>      > 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route
>>> repeatedly
>>>      > for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older
>>>      ones are
>>>      > only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central
>>> ridge
>>>      > between the tracks.
>>>      >
>>>      > According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost
>>>      always an
>>>      > unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as
>>>      surrounding
>>>      > terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since
>>>      the local
>>>      > soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
>>>      > muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at
>>>      random as
>>>      > anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
>>>      >
>>>
>>>
>>>      _____



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

brad
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
It's a typical mtn road, used mostly for recreation today, track is
appropriate.

On 7/7/19 2:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 7. Jul 2019, at 01:51, brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> It is still used for a couple of  mines (worked by 1 or 2 people), but mostly recreational use.
>
> if this is an access road to mines it might not be a track but a service road?
>
> Cheers, Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

brad
In reply to this post by Warin
Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally useful?   
The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from
"To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype=*.:
to
"To describe the quality of a track, use smoothness=* and surface=*.   In some regions tracktype is also useful."


On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote:

There is a visibility tag.

So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.

Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all that usefull.

I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.

Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground clearance.
Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.

Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road that has been compacted.
Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.

But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard, smooth and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a skating ring (wet clay).

And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on top .. with black goo underneath if you break through.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: track smoothness/quality

Joseph Eisenberg
No.

While tracktype= has some issues, smoothness= is more subjective and less generally useful. 

Surface= is very helpful and more objective, so it should be mentioned,but I believe it is already suggested on most of the minor highway, path and track pages.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:24 AM brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally useful?   
The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from
"To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype=*.:
to
"To describe the quality of a track, use smoothness=* and surface=*.   In some regions tracktype is also useful."



On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote:

There is a visibility tag.

So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.

Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all that usefull.

I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.

Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground clearance.
Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.

Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road that has been compacted.
Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.

But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard, smooth and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a skating ring (wet clay).

And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on top .. with black goo underneath if you break through.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12