tracktype has been redefined for a second time in the last 20 days by the same participant in discussions while they are still ongoing. The first paragraph of its article now says that tracktype considers “how much improved over the surrounding ground”, listing this before the existing “how well-maintained a track or other road is, particularly regarding surface firmness”. This doesn’t seem to match this poll, where 77% said they use tracktype to describe a track’s surface firmness, nor this poll, where 37% said they use tracktype to represent general quality (vehicle usability/utility, maintenance, construction sophistication, etc.) with some regard to firmness, nor this poll, where 57% said no changes to its definition are needed.
Do you agree with this change?
Yes, the new version should be kept
No, this change should be undone
Partially, this should come after maintenance and firmness
Partially, it must be phrased differently (please specify in a reply)
Tracktype is a partially skunked tag. Most use it as a general simple classification of tracks and other unpaved ways in terms of their quality. Aspects considered are:
the level of development and construction
the level of maintainance
how firm it is
how pleasant it is to walk on
how easily it can be used by vehicles
Different mappers put different emphasis to these aspects and there is a sizeable group that says that firmness of the track should be the paramount aspect overrulling most other aspects.
It usually applies to highway=track but is sometimes used for non-tracks too, especially in less-developed places where many main roads are unpaved.
I think that describes how it is used in practice much better. Anyway, the current version is better than what was there before.