The road pictured below is in Tanzania, which has a two rainy seasons spanning 5 months in total.
tracktype=* should be assigned to that road?grade1grade2grade3grade4grade5Edit: the second poll was incorrectly published as a single-choice poll. I removed it to avoid confusion and I’ve republished it as a multi-choice poll in a reply below.
I’m torn between Grade 3 and Grade 4. The area on the right looks quite stable and firm, even though it’s mostly natural ground. The person in the light blue polo shirt standing right in front of the truck is standing on that section in regular shoes without any trouble—they aren’t sinking in—and the truck hasn’t left any tracks there or sunk into the ground either. → Definitely more Grade 3 there.
I deliberately consider the left side, where water is flowing, to be a “roadside ditch” and therefore not part of the road. The transition between the two is borderline. Classically Grade 5, but it doesn’t extend across the entire roadway. Therefore, a compromise: Grade 4
Mostly because of the absence of a solid or compacted surface, combined with visible deformation and mud.
The roadside ditch on the left itself doesn’t count for me at all. You can see this even on a perfectly paved road; even here in German-speaking countries, trucks often get stuck in them, just last week, a bus tried to turn around in traffic and ended up stuck across all lanes because its rear wheels got stuck in the dirt. Sadly, the emergency services couldn’t get through because the bus was completely blocking both lanes. The woman who caused the accident has died because of that 
The second question is unfair. You’re asking about multiple factors, but I can only name one.
Not a track.
Yeah, the second poll is wrong, it is not multiple choice checklist. Personally, I am torn between grade 2 and 3 it is smooth, well usable by non 4x4 vehicle. But as was already mentioned, it is not a track.
You’re right, I’m sorry about that. I can’t change that poll now, but I’m re-issuing it as a multi-choice poll. @mcliquid @Langlaeufer
Challenge 1?
We must be on challenge 94 by now 
I find the picture to be too blurry / out of focus
I guess I know the picture from somewhere in the OSM documentary wiki. Not hailing from a region that features public roads (obvious from the photo) like that, I cannot comment any further nor cast a vote.
PS: 6 dry plus two times 5 rainy makes sixteen months a year?
5 wet months split into two distinct rainy seasons, 7 dry months split into two seasons (one 5-month long). Many sources refer the 5-month long dry season as “the dry season”.
I just started counting, which means we still have 93 to go!
Recently I learned that the wiki documentation has been changed to make firmness the first aspect to be considered. That without a single poll 
(History repeating?)
I do not mind that change – In the area of my local knowledge improvement/maintenance and firmness mostly (I say mostly) correlate positively – and certainly I do not think that ordering of aspects merits that over the top “debated” plaque message in the wiki. Just thinking of ways how to add the “usability” concern to the aspects considered, it was mentioned here under some kind of authority.
Is a reference to this.
“The verifiability of this key is disputed” could reasonably be stated about quite a few OSM keys where the distinction between one value and another can be more art than science. highway, place, shop, amenity, just to name a few. If wiki pages for these keys had verifiability status messages at the top, I suppose they could say something like this:
The verifiability of this key is low, but nobody is particularly bothered about it.
I guess, only removing the reference to classification might heal that, at least in the eyes of the person that posted the plaque. From observing talk on “firmness” though, I conclude, this won’t be enough.
This concern surprises me. Those most likely to lose out with the removal of this warning are new mappers, tired or frustrated after sifting through endless discussions about this tag. The previous wiki discussion about tracktype verifiability also went unanswered.
The best alternative to this warning would be to write a section dedicated to Verifiability guidelines, like the one for the hazard tag, or a section on Controversies, like the one for the smoothness tag or the one for the trail_visibility tag, or even a specific article, as in Path controversy. A weaker option is mentioning it in the text, such as the mentions in mtb:scale, condition and place.
I have listed in this topic at least 17 specific points that independently affect verifiability, all raised by other mappers, backed by references. There are so many that I needed to group them to make them easier to read.
The answers to question 18 in this poll clarified that this word does not refer to a hierarchical classification as is the case with highway, so I think this word is no longer problematic, although I think it deserves a little clarification.
No.
57% of the 23 people answering that poll said “It can continue as is, no changes are needed” and were told to stop reading then. Precisely 4 people managed to get down to question 18. tracktype was conceived as, and is widely used as, a simple hierarchy. Can’t we talk about something useful like an area data type? 
