I’ve got a case of pale, loose, fine crushed-stone material on park footways (photo attached), not compacted, you can make shallow footprints/holes in it, particle size roughly 0-5mm with visible dust component. It’s sometimes called “crusher fines” in North American landscaping/trail contexts, but that term specifically implies a compacted, bound surface (that’s the whole point of the fines, they lock together). This material doesn’t do that.
For a familiar comparison: it’s similar to the loose top dressing used on petanque courts (crushed limestone or decomposed granite, a few mm deep, deliberately left uncompacted so the boule gets grip). Same material family, just on a footway instead of a pitch.
Per the discussion in Surface=fine_gravel - is it for loose gravel or duplicate of surface=compacted, and the current Tag:surface=fine_gravel wiki page, this sounds like it should just be surface=fine_gravel (loose, per the corrected wiki definition), rather than anything crusher-fines-specific.
Does anyone map non-compacted crushed-stone-dust footways like this regularly? Is fine_gravel the right call, or is there a case for a separate value given the visible dust/binder component even without compaction?
Full Image: https://backend.freemap.sk/gallery/pictures/595574/image?width=2220
Source: Freemap Europe, digital map
That is my initial thought too. But what if one another footway there is no fine gravel and only loose dust (e.g. < 2mm as per Wentworth scale) ?
– julcnxThen I'd say it is surface=sand ;) At least where there is no compacted layer beneath.
– Hungerburg