tôi dã thử gủi email cho nhũng bạn a chíng phủ sài gòn, nhung không trả lời. Ai có biết số địen thoại cua họ không ?
Currently, this page states that "all ways with unpaved surface which can be uses by normal cars should be tagged as track (type 1 or 2), NOT as highway or road. Ways which can only be used by 4WD-cars should be tagged as track type 3, 4 or 5. All other ways that cannot be used by cars should be tagged as path."
First, tagging a way as track means tagging highway=track, so you tag it as highway. All ways are tagged as highway.
Second, tagging all unpaved ways with highway=track contradicts with the documentation in highway and track. In highway you find that the highway-key indicates the importance of the highway within the road network as a whole. In track you find that highway=track describes roads for agricultural use, forest tracks etc. These roads are often unpaved, but that does not mean that all unpaved roads should be tagged as highway=track. In tracktype you find, that it usually applies to highway=track, but may also be used on other types of highway, especially in less-developed places where many main roads are unpaved. Thus, the tracktype-key can be used to give a rough classification of surface and smoothness quility of any way.
Third, in my opinion, path is not an appropriate tag to indicate that a way cannot be used by cars, since it mainly considers legal access instead of physical access. In my opinion, the tagging system lacks an appropriate way of roughly indicating the physical accessibility of a way to certain vehicles. In Vietnam some houses are (physically) accessible only by unpaved ways, sometimes even not wide enough for cars. Still these ways have the importance of a residential highway. I think these roads should still be tagged as residential and not as path in order to not to loose the importance of the way on the map. I would use, for example, width to indicate that a way is not wide enough for cars. However, to me the problem of roughly indicating physical accessibility for cars is an unsolved problem in general.
Thus, I propose the following changes to this page: Replace the above cited rule with the following:
Use highway to classify the importance and usage of a way. Use tracktype to roughly classify the quality (regarding surface and smoothness conditions) of a way. To give more details on the quality, use surface and smoothness. For ways that cannot be used by cars, use either highway=path or a highway according to the importance of the way (example: highway=residential) together with a tag indicating the barriere for cars (example: width).
I also propose to delete the copied table on tracktypes since it is redundant. Instead I would link to tracktype.
--Cantho (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 12:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Can't the international borders be more accurate? . Even Google: .  Jidanni (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC) 
Marking Xã and other admin divisions
Can someone add to the wiki what the convention is for add subdivisions in Vietnam?
For example wards in Saigon are both present as markers and boundary relations e.g. 4191224545 4191224545. For the rural Xã equivalent I rarely see this being done, but in some cases, no boundary data is available, so adding a marker would still be preferable.