Running tracks: leisure pitch (area) vs leisure track (way)

When mapping a running track (athletics for non-American English speakers) Is there any reason to prefer leisure=track over leisure=pitch, pitch=athletics? I have always thought that areas were better as they express more detail, but I can sort of see an argument for using a linear way given the fact that people use tracks. The issue with leisure=track is that they probably won’t be used for routing given that they are not highways and routing for someone running on a track seems like overkill.

1 Like

Areas for specificity in mapping while using the ways for routing seems exactly like how waterways (lakes but with ways representing flow) or highway areas (with paths for routers) get mapped. So I suppose my vote is both.

1 Like

Although it’s not much used currently, leisure=pitch; pitch=athletics, it would be a solution to the problem where leisure=track is used for fundamentally different features (linear tracks and areas in which there is one or more linear tracks).


If it was being used for routers, it seems that using highway=footway would be more useful. (with applicable access tags, of course). As a side note, I used to use a track that was used by a cut through for kids coming and going to school and really would have preferred access=destination on the track ;).

1 Like

It also seems that it could facilitate athletics specific tagging on tracks like lanes , lane width, presence of a metal rail, etc…

Would it be overkill to make the inside of the leisure=pitch mutlipolygon have the leisure=track tag?