Dear community,
I’m having a look at this path visible with 360° images on Panoramax.
My perception based on the wiki page is that this must be not tagged as highway=track since it’s too narrow for a 4-wheeled vehicule.
One user corrected it from “track” to “path” (which I agree with) but the changeset got this comment:
Maybe I’m missing something, but is it that clear that there is a consensus that this must be a “path”?
Edit: Add missing “not”
Why is he deleting panoramax links?
Oh, and please link thread in discussed changeset. I did it here
Thanks for linking that thread to the changeset
And by photo it clearly looks like a path, not track
Undeniably a path and NOT a track by any standard. Looking at Panoramax, the path is no different before/after the fallen tree, which seems to be where the way is split and magically becomes a “track”.
The five-strong consensus they’re talking about is simply because no-one has edited the tag while making other specific changes to the way — a ridiculous argument. The user is being difficult and wrong.
They have now agreed that photo depicts =path not =track, and expressed surprise at how quickly plants appear to have grown since their last visit
In this part of world, in my experience, this is normal growth speed if plants are not disturbed. For example because track use ceased.
I think it is ok to retag it back to path and restore other tags, unless there is reason to expect images be misplaced
I want to give any new reader the necessary information about the discussion that was left out in this thread: The actual discussion was never about whether THIS photo is showing a track. The problem was that a mapper posted photos geotagged to a different path as justification for the changes on the given one. And why were the photos removed? One photo was shot by a different user not involved in the discussion and on another path as his geotagging of the photo clearly indicates. The other photo was not actually a photo back then but just an invalid panoramax link due to an invalid image ID.
It’s completely useless to start a parallel discussion here. Everyone who has answered here didn’t have all the information from the changeset discussions as a) not all threads were linked here and b) the discussion already progressed ways beyond the point participants from here were seeing.
Please participate directly in the original discussions, everything is explained there multiple times.
It is useful if changeset comments between two users were insufficient and one or both wish wider community to comment on available evidence
It is still pretty useless because …
Even more as important pieces of information have been left out here.
Then please mention them if anything relevant is missing.
At this length of discussion changest comments are becoming unwieldy, and with additional comments they had toward unusable.
Also, changeset discussion has some extra threads that are now hopefully solved.
From what I see in the photo, a tractor can go there fine and do some forestry land access. From the looks of it, such did not happen during recent times, but may happen any day. Why people here so keen on “narrowness”? path and track are not about that, they are about use instead. (My 2 ¢.)
As a track it should probably have some kind of lifecycle prefix, which would probably remove it completely from all/most hiking/cycling etc. maps. I do agree in principle, but I guess most people who actually survey overgrown tracks might care more about getting an useful end result. Me included if it comes to that.
These things are correlated. If a way looks too narrow to be used by four-wheel vehicles, it’s a sign that it may not be a track. There may be other evidence to take into account. But in my experience, very often there is nothing else to judge by. Short of setting up a camera and recording how the way is used over a long period…
I just want to hint any new people here that the actual discussion was never about whether THIS photo is showing a track. The problem was that a mapper posted photos geotagged to a different path as justification for the changes on the given one.
