User talk:Ezekielf/Tag:highway=track
Two-track
The condition "wide enough for a typical four-wheeled (two-track) vehicle" comes relatively late on the page, under physical condition. I'd prefer that earlier in the definition section, to distinguish from a path (which also comes later in "How to decide"). --Polarbear w (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- This may be possible and I think I would prefer it earlier as well. With this draft I prioritized function/usage/purpose over physical characteristics since much of the feedback I received on earlier drafts was that I focused too much on the physical characteristics. In an earlier draft the last bullet of "How to decide" read as "A trail, path, or other way that is too narrow for, or not used by, four wheeled motor vehicles. See highway=path for more details." I thought this worked well but I received feedback that excluding ways for being too narrow wasn't right. -- Ezekielf (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I worked this into the last sentence of the first paragraph. Here's the change. Does that seem better to you? -- Ezekielf (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
More context
Reviewing the comments so far, most discussion seems to arise on two issues, where at this stage I think we could narrow by providing more context in the definition. The context becomes clear during these discussions, but many times lost when a proposal gets approved, not commonly accessed by the average mapper on history or discussion pages. However, we should avoid becoming to complex, make it understandable for the average mapper.
> The tag highway=track is used for minor land access roads that are not considered part of the regular road network. 1. "Minor" or "Low importance" (suggested as alternative): is interpreted in regard to use frequency or throughput, is interpreted in an economical context (permanent or temporary). In regard to physical appearance or throughput, a track can be seen as "not minor", it just depends what reference infrastructure you have in mind, which differs largely across the world. What is interpreted as "minor" in Western countries is regarded as a "major" in countries with less developed infrastructure. It seems however that to everyone it is clear that minor or low importance is not to be regarded in a social context or importance. So could adding the context as "of minor social importance" resolve, or narrow the grey zone ? So a track can be of major economic importance, temporary or permanent, as given in some of the logging examples. Of major importance as for emergency services. However, none of them, no track has a major social importance.
2. not considered part of the regular road network: also here, depending on the regional context, what is to be regarded as the "regular road network". I think we can improve this by just adding some context. Regular road network could be improved by saying "local regular road network", adding the local context forces the mapper to always observe it with a reference how the LOCAL road network is developed and used. I would also add the term public here, so we get "not considered part of the LOCAL, regular PUBLIC road network". Is this an improvement, I think it is, it keeps it open to use tracks both for private as public use, or ownership. It guides the mapper to think for alternatives, as with the highway=service tagged roads (like the arterial forestry roads example), to upgrade a track to a service road when used in a private context. It does discourage upgrading tracks to all the highway classes that are by definition part of the "public" road network.
Finally I would suggest one improvement in one of the examples: > A minor road providing primary access to a commercial or industrial facility. See highway=service. I would add agricultural faculties here. Many agricultural farms or developments have developed significant permanent infrastructure and roads or tracks to access it. Developed in more industrial like activities. Notice the intended use of infrastructure, which makes it distinguishable from agricultural land. Also I would avoid to use the word minor here. So the example would become:
"A road providing primary access to a commercial, industrial or agricultural facility or infrastructure". See highway=service. --Bert Araali (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yet more context
So far, the new article describes track as it is used around here in the local province. It does so in a calm manner leaving enough leeway but not too much, to become useless as a guidance.
A suggestion: Remove the Note in the intro section, make the starting sentence of the physical condition section read "highway=track does not _necessarily_ mean “unpaved road”, define surface and other …"
A question: In the neighbouring province, access roads to mountain alps are frequently mapped as highway=service, though the huts there are only serviced in summer time just the same. The article will underline local practice. One other case that is not covered though, are roads for access to some facilities in skiing resorts, being them restaurants or snow cannons etc. These are mapped tracks too. Perhaps freedom of choice in local areas? What would you say? --Hungerburg (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the Note about track not simply meaning "unpaved road" fits better in the physical condition section. On the other hand it is more noticeable near the top of the page. I wish the note wasn't necessary at all, but there are many places where track has been used on all unpaved roads even though service, unclassified, or residential would be more correct so we want this point to be very clear.
- I'd say minor roads going up the mountain at a ski resort are a bit of a grey area and they could be mapped as track or service depending on the case. A ski resort is a large area of land so the "minor land access road" description fits. But if the road is used by the general public to drive up to a restaurant perhaps service is more appropriate. At the ski areas I'm familiar with, track feels very appropriate for little roads going up the mountain. They are usually in fairly rough condition and are mostly used in the summer since they are snow covered (part of the ski trails) in winter. However, sometimes there is a road open to tourists to drive up to the top of the mountain in the summer that then becomes a ski trail in the winter. For a road like this highway=service or unclassified feels more appropriate. So yes, freedom of choice in local areas as there will always be grey areas and edge cases. -- Ezekielf (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the note doubles the sentence immediately ahead of it. So this goes beyond calm and reasonable, IMO.
- The tracks in the ski resorts are only for servicing infrastructure during summer and for farmers tending their sheep (the latter makes them tracks, the former might make them service), but also to cater the huts with fresh vegetables and other food. I will opt and leave them tracks, as a bow to the ones before me. Life can be so easy ;)
- PS: As I said, in the neighbouring province, access roads to alps (not permantent dwellings) are mapped mostly service, and from reading the highway=service article, that would not give me argumentative lever to question that.