When to use track roads or tertiary roads etc.  Newfoundland, Canada

lyx · 2018-06-12T19:39:27.000Z

What I do in rural Montana: If it is to narrow for a car it is a path, otherwise if the way is used for agricultural or forestry traffic only it is a track. Access to a single farm or residence would be highway=service, roads connecting settlements would be unclassified or higher. Of course it might make sense to use a different scheme if the general distribution of highway types in an area is different. In a country that has no paved roads it would certainly make sense to have the most important roads as primary even if they are unpaved, however as soon as there is a notable presence of paved roads I would not do that. In Montana I will not tag an unpaved road anything higher than tertiary.

GnasherNF · 2018-07-17T22:29:34.000Z

As the original poster directed my recent messages to him back to this thread, I figured I would post the update here.

My point of view is that unpaved throughfares should be tagged as tertiary, the regular unpaved road network that can be navigated by two wheel drive motor vehicles be tagged as unclassified, roads that can only be navigated by four wheel drive or ATV traffic or consist of two ruts be tagged as track, and access roads to buildings or quarries be tagged service. When I add new roads, this is the method I try to follow.

Note: The following comments may be considered off-topic.

Unfortunately, the original poster’s current practice seems to be to wait for me to add the road network in an area, then follow my additions around the map and change every tertiary, unclassified, and service road to highway=track, and to delete any highway=service driveway that I add. That erases all of the work I put into differentiating and classifying the roads when I add them to the map.

To give the benefit of the doubt, I even tried mapping far from the areas I usually map. I drove the roads in a two wheel drive car, camped in the area, used GPS, and tagged the main road as type unclassified, with adjoining roads leading to quarries as type service. The poster tracked my changes and changed the road network to all highway=track.

If you took every road in a city and made them all highway=residential, you might not technically be wrong, but would that be considered vandalism?

Andrew_F · 2018-07-17T22:44:17.000Z

I’m from Gander and have lived, hunted and fished in these areas and roads for over 50 years(longer than you). I have also been mapping longer than you for Google Maps and Open Street Map. I Map across Newfoundland on places I live and travel to, and do not bother to look at who made an edit but rather how does it fit into the OSM’s overall view.

You are upgrading forest resource roads to the level of highways and city roads when they are not.

You refused to try and work out a compromise but instead you quotes parts of of sentences from multiple definitions to confirm your view as if you are a lawyer.

I have no problem working things out in a forum like this to get a general guideline from the community on the direction edits should go.

But again other than editing around the Gander Bay Loop and Gander river areas which seem to be where you concentrate your efforts as well, I don’t look at who made an edit just its accuracy and how well it fits in with how other people are making edits around the world.

You stopped replying as people did not agree with your view and tried alternative methods.

If you get more people here to agree with your way of thinking I’ll revise my edits, but since most people are following the same sort of guidlines I use I’m not inclined to change things at this point.

This is not your map, this is a map shared and owned by everyone in the world that contributes to or uses it.

SomeoneElse · 2018-07-17T22:47:31.000Z

How about some photographs of some of the roads/tracks concerned?

Andrew_F · 2018-07-17T22:56:14.000Z

There are hundreds of edits, hundreds of roads. Satellite imagery is quite good though.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/49.0248/-54.8380
One of the biggest clues in this area is that what I have reduced to a Tertiary Road is the Salmon Pond Forest Resource Road and smaller roads and trails to Unmaintained Track Roads as these roads are not serviced, plowed during the winter etc. The next time they will be looked after is when the logging companies come back to harvest the area again. If there are a few cabins I upgrade the road to residential. Quarries to service roads etc.

SomeoneElse:

How about some photographs of some of the roads/tracks concerned?

GnasherNF · 2018-07-18T03:13:20.000Z

@SomeoneElse, here are some examples of the types of roads involved.

Unpaved Tertiary
1. Unpaved tertiary road in summer
2. Unpaved tertiary road in autumn
3. Unpaved tertiary road near dams and power generating stations
4. Unpaved tertiary road with bridge
5. Unpaved tertiary road in winter
6. Unpaved tertiary road in winter - in use

Unpaved Unclassified
1. Unpaved unclassified
2. Unpaved unclassified
3. Unpaved unclassified
4. Unpaved unclassified, typical of service roads leading to cabins
5. Unpaved unclassified, typical logging road that will deteriorate over time

Unpaved Track
1. Track beside paved highway
2. Track beside unpaved tertiary
3. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
4. Track through scrub underbrush
5. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
6. Track that appears overgrown from satellite photos
7. Track through small trees
8. Track on muddy ground
9. Track on rocky ground

hadw · 2018-07-18T07:48:30.000Z

I’d agree with the track/not a track distinction in the images I sampled.

Tertiary/unclassified is not something you can decide just from a photograph.

Andrew_F · 2018-07-18T09:30:11.000Z

I’m not quite there.
What I saw in Unpaved Track Pictures I would classify as Unmaintained Track Road with Smoothness Level https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness of (specialized_off_road_wheels) tractor, ATV
The Unpaved Unclassified I would classify as Unmaintained Track Road with Smoothness Level (robust_wheels) trekking bike, normal cars. The reason for this is that they are very narrow and the trees will leave marks in the paint job and they are not smooth enough for low riding cars as well. So anyone with a nice car will not risk the damage. You can clearly see these are narrow one lane and the tire tracks some with grass in the middle are clearly visible.
The Unpaved Tertiary pictures I would classify as Unclassified Roads bumping them up where appropriate. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/49.0947/-54.8278 I have reduced to a Tertiary Road the Salmon Pond Forest Resource Road. I kept this above Unclassified because you could technically argue that it connects The Towns of Glenwood, Birchy Bay and Clarkes Head. Although no one will actually use these woods roads for that purpose as there are perfectly good well maintained paved highways connecting these communities.
This sums up our dispute as GnasherNF bumps all forest resource roads up above unclassified, and had huge numbers of these roads https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/49.1429/-55.6524 up as Secondary and Primary.
I’ll only give a tertiary rating to a woods road that would link small communities and I’m not fond of that when there are paved highways linking these communities.
"

hadw:

I’d agree with the track/not a track distinction in the images I sampled.

Tertiary/unclassified is not something you can decide just from a photograph.

GnasherNF · 2018-07-18T17:23:21.000Z

When I started mapping, there were not many unpaved roads mapped in Newfoundland. Most roads that were mapped were tagged as secondary and tertiary roads, so I used them as the example to follow and made most of my roads either secondary or tertiary. The last link listed above is an excellent example as those roads were added in 2012 (not by me) as all secondary. I have actually been downgrading these roads, NOT upgrading them as stated. Feel free to examine the history of these ways to verify.

I only realized there was an issue with tagging these roads as secondary/tertiary when I noticed all the roads I was adding were being changed to highway=track with no tracktype applied. I am willing to admit my mistakes and change the way I tag. I already have, and will continue to remain open to change as it comes up.

Let me clearly state - I want these road networks to be accurate. That is why I add them. I do not want them to be inaccurate.

Traffic patterns on the unpaved roads in Newfoundland are similar to roads in a city. In a city, residential roads lead to tertiary roads, which lead to secondary roads, which lead to primary roads, and then to trunk roads, each carrying more traffic. In the rural areas, tracks lead to roads, which sometimes lead to tertiary roads which cover or link larger areas, which then lead to the paved road network. If you are navigating the woods (why else use a map?), a tertiary road will get you out, and are generally wider and better maintained.

Here are some examples of unpaved roads I tag as tertiary:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146628702 - starts here and continues west, only broken by bridges. Over 60km long and links paved highways, and connects all of the roads and buildings in between to the paved network.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146236518 - starts here and continues east. Over 90 km long and only broken by bridges. Again, links all roads and tracks and buildings in between to the paved road network on both ends.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146220394 - stretches east and west along the south side of Red Indian Lake. Over 70km long and links to the paved road network and the nearest town of Millertown to the east. There are a lot of side roads along this route and it is very easy to get lost in unmapped, dead-end roads.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146307435 - connects the TCH in the south to the paved Botwood highway in the east. All other roads and tracks and buildings in this area connect to the paved network through these tertiary roads.

It is important that these unpaved roads are tagged as unpaved. If a mapper has worries about people accidentally getting routed onto these roads (which OSM isn’t responsible for) then note that routing software gives priority to paved networks and most times will only route onto unpaved roads if paved roads are not available.

alester · 2018-07-18T17:30:54.000Z

GnasherNF:

@SomeoneElse, here are some examples of the types of roads involved.

Unpaved Tertiary
1. Unpaved tertiary road in summer
2. Unpaved tertiary road in autumn
3. Unpaved tertiary road near dams and power generating stations
4. Unpaved tertiary road with bridge
5. Unpaved tertiary road in winter
6. Unpaved tertiary road in winter - in use

Unpaved Unclassified
1. Unpaved unclassified
2. Unpaved unclassified
3. Unpaved unclassified
4. Unpaved unclassified, typical of service roads leading to cabins
5. Unpaved unclassified, typical logging road that will deteriorate over time

Unpaved Track
1. Track beside paved highway
2. Track beside unpaved tertiary
3. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
4. Track through scrub underbrush
5. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
6. Track that appears overgrown from satellite photos
7. Track through small trees
8. Track on muddy ground
9. Track on rocky ground

Like hadw said, it’s hard to determine whether tertiary is appropriate for the first batch without knowing if they’re used by locals for driving between towns or not. I suspect that they probably aren’t, in which case unclassified would be more appropriate.

As for the ones you consider unclassified, those appear to me to be clearly tracks with one of the higher track_type values (grade1 to 3). The ones you consider tracks can be left as such, but should be given the lower track_type values (grade3 to 5).

Andrew_F · 2018-07-18T20:51:51.000Z

The 4 examples really don’t meet the Tertiary definition. To move from unclassified to Tertiary “A road linking small settlements, or the local centres of a large town or city.”
While I think Unclassified may be better I usually won’t bother to change a road 1 level unless something really is out of sorts. It is why I do pay more attention to the difference between Unmaintained Track Road (not suitable for all cars and vehicles,) and unclassified (which is the level most any vehicle can drive without worry about damaging a vehicle.

Paved or unpaved really does not matter moving beyond unclassified although most higher level roads are paved that should not be a primary factor in making the decision.

Getting out of the woods is not a factor in determining if a road is a Tertiary Road, an unclassified road is a good quality road that will get you in or out.

GnasherNF:

When I started mapping, there were not many unpaved roads mapped in Newfoundland. Most roads that were mapped were tagged as secondary and tertiary roads, so I used them as the example to follow and made most of my roads either secondary or tertiary. The last link listed above is an excellent example as those roads were added in 2012 (not by me) as all secondary. I have actually been downgrading these roads, NOT upgrading them as stated. Feel free to examine the history of these ways to verify.

I only realized there was an issue with tagging these roads as secondary/tertiary when I noticed all the roads I was adding were being changed to highway=track with no tracktype applied. I am willing to admit my mistakes and change the way I tag. I already have, and will continue to remain open to change as it comes up.

Let me clearly state - I want these road networks to be accurate. That is why I add them. I do not want them to be inaccurate.

Traffic patterns on the unpaved roads in Newfoundland are similar to roads in a city. In a city, residential roads lead to tertiary roads, which lead to secondary roads, which lead to primary roads, and then to trunk roads, each carrying more traffic. In the rural areas, tracks lead to roads, which sometimes lead to tertiary roads which cover or link larger areas, which then lead to the paved road network. If you are navigating the woods (why else use a map?), a tertiary road will get you out, and are generally wider and better maintained.

Here are some examples of unpaved roads I tag as tertiary:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146628702 - starts here and continues west, only broken by bridges. Over 60km long and links paved highways, and connects all of the roads and buildings in between to the paved network.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146236518 - starts here and continues east. Over 90 km long and only broken by bridges. Again, links all roads and tracks and buildings in between to the paved road network on both ends.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146220394 - stretches east and west along the south side of Red Indian Lake. Over 70km long and links to the paved road network and the nearest town of Millertown to the east. There are a lot of side roads along this route and it is very easy to get lost in unmapped, dead-end roads.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146307435 - connects the TCH in the south to the paved Botwood highway in the east. All other roads and tracks and buildings in this area connect to the paved network through these tertiary roads.

It is important that these unpaved roads are tagged as unpaved. If a mapper has worries about people accidentally getting routed onto these roads (which OSM isn’t responsible for) then note that routing software gives priority to paved networks and most times will only route onto unpaved roads if paved roads are not available.

GnasherNF · 2018-07-18T23:11:23.000Z

I understand it can be frustrating when trying to communicate ideas to others across the internet. I apologize to the other readers of this thread, but when I try to contact the original poster directly, he keeps referring back to this thread instead, so I will address the issues here.

Andrew_F_:

Unmaintained Track Road (not suitable for all cars and vehicles,) and unclassified (which is the level most any vehicle can drive without worry about damaging a vehicle.

I agree with this point of view, and yet you change all unclassified roads I tag to track, including ones that are maintained year round and including ones I drive on with a Prius with barely any ground clearance.

Andrew_F_:

I Map across Newfoundland on places I live and travel to, and do not bother to look at who made an edit but rather how does it fit into the OSM’s overall view.

And yet a road that was on the map for 6 and a half years as a two-lane unpaved secondary road remained unchanged by you, but 3 days after I changed it to a single-lane unclassified road, you changed it to a track. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146818656/history Not an isolated incident either, and I can provide links to many instances where roads were tagged as secondary for 6+ years, but my changes were edited days after I made a change.

Andrew_F_:

You refused to try and work out a compromise but instead you quotes parts of of sentences from multiple definitions to confirm your view as if you are a lawyer.

You are the person who keeps directing me to specific wiki pages, and then complains when I present information from those pages that support my point of view. I have even adjusted the way I tag to try and come to a compromise, yet it is me you call inflexible.

Andrew_F_:

I’m from Gander and have lived, hunted and fished in these areas and roads for over 50 years(longer than you). I have also been mapping longer than you for Google Maps and Open Street Map.

Why are you always so aggressive towards me, instead of just debating the issue? Even your opening post was a finger pointing directly at my profile.

Andrew_F_:

You stopped replying as people did not agree with your view and tried alternative methods.

Andrew_F_:

I have no problem working things out in a forum like this to get a general guideline from the community on the direction edits should go.

I was the one who restarted the conversation instead of mass-changing another person’s edits.

Andrew_F_:

This is not your map, this is a map shared and owned by everyone in the world that contributes to or uses it.

I understand that and agree. I do add a lot of new roads into the database. There are many instances where I add roads and you change the tags, but you do not add to the unfinished road network in that area. Instead, you wait until I map more of it, then you change it again. Can you look at it from my point of view and see why that would be frustrating?

Andrew_F_:

If you get more people here to agree with your way of thinking I’ll revise my edits, but since most people are following the same sort of guidlines I use I’m not inclined to change things at this point.

The few people who have responded to this forum thread have weighed in on both sides: some make use of unclassified+track for unpaved roads and some only use track+tracktype.

Andrew_F_:

This sums up our dispute as GnasherNF bumps all forest resource roads up above unclassified, and had huge numbers of these roads https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/49.1429/-55.6524 up as Secondary and Primary.

Simply untrue. I explained in a previous post about my past mapping practices, but these roads (and most of the existing unpaved road network in Newfoundland) were mapped 6+ years ago as unpaved secondary roads.

Andrew_F_:

I’ve put up a compromise in that as it does not do much good if the two of us or others simply keep reverting each others edits.

I want to avoid a tagging war and I would greatly appreciate your help in extending the unpaved road network in Newfoundland. As two mappers who are mapping the same regions, is there a way we can come to a working compromise instead of stalling on a question over tags? Even if it is something temporary, like I will not change the tags on roads you create and you do the same for roads I add?

Andrew_F · 2018-07-18T23:28:01.000Z

I have and will continue to ignore who made a previous edit when I look at or edit anything.
I map in grids or sections at a time.
I refer you back to the forums to see how others look at the issues and keep this conversation in one place.
You revert back to personal attacks when talk about the edits do not go your way.
As previously stated when you get more people agreeing in this forum with you, I will change, as long as people are agreeing along the same lines as the way I edit then I will not change.
I refer you back to a full page from the wiki not just the lines I like with the hopes you read the whole page and try and get the full picture not just the parts of a sentence you like.
Moving forward I will only reply to others in this forum and will now ignore you completely.
Goodbye.

GnasherNF:

I understand it can be frustrating when trying to communicate ideas to others across the internet. I apologize to the other readers of this thread, but when I try to contact the original poster directly, he keeps referring back to this thread instead, so I will address the issues here.

Andrew_F_:

Unmaintained Track Road (not suitable for all cars and vehicles,) and unclassified (which is the level most any vehicle can drive without worry about damaging a vehicle.

I agree with this point of view, and yet you change all unclassified roads I tag to track, including ones that are maintained year round and including ones I drive on with a Prius with barely any ground clearance.

Andrew_F_:

I Map across Newfoundland on places I live and travel to, and do not bother to look at who made an edit but rather how does it fit into the OSM’s overall view.

And yet a road that was on the map for 6 and a half years as a two-lane unpaved secondary road remained unchanged by you, but 3 days after I changed it to a single-lane unclassified road, you changed it to a track. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146818656/history Not an isolated incident either, and I can provide links to many instances where roads were tagged as secondary for 6+ years, but my changes were edited days after I made a change.

Andrew_F_:

You refused to try and work out a compromise but instead you quotes parts of of sentences from multiple definitions to confirm your view as if you are a lawyer.

You are the person who keeps directing me to specific wiki pages, and then complains when I present information from those pages that support my point of view. I have even adjusted the way I tag to try and come to a compromise, yet it is me you call inflexible.

Andrew_F_:

I’m from Gander and have lived, hunted and fished in these areas and roads for over 50 years(longer than you). I have also been mapping longer than you for Google Maps and Open Street Map.

Why are you always so aggressive towards me, instead of just debating the issue? Even your opening post was a finger pointing directly at my profile.

Andrew_F_:

You stopped replying as people did not agree with your view and tried alternative methods.

Andrew_F_:

I have no problem working things out in a forum like this to get a general guideline from the community on the direction edits should go.

I was the one who restarted the conversation instead of mass-changing another person’s edits.

Andrew_F_:

This is not your map, this is a map shared and owned by everyone in the world that contributes to or uses it.

I understand that and agree. I do add a lot of new roads into the database. There are many instances where I add roads and you change the tags, but you do not add to the unfinished road network in that area. Instead, you wait until I map more of it, then you change it again. Can you look at it from my point of view and see why that would be frustrating?

Andrew_F_:

If you get more people here to agree with your way of thinking I’ll revise my edits, but since most people are following the same sort of guidlines I use I’m not inclined to change things at this point.

The few people who have responded to this forum thread have weighed in on both sides: some make use of unclassified+track for unpaved roads and some only use track+tracktype.

Andrew_F_:

This sums up our dispute as GnasherNF bumps all forest resource roads up above unclassified, and had huge numbers of these roads https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/49.1429/-55.6524 up as Secondary and Primary.

Simply untrue. I explained in a previous post about my past mapping practices, but these roads (and most of the existing unpaved road network in Newfoundland) were mapped 6+ years ago as unpaved secondary roads.

Andrew_F_:

I’ve put up a compromise in that as it does not do much good if the two of us or others simply keep reverting each others edits.

I want to avoid a tagging war and I would greatly appreciate your help in extending the unpaved road network in Newfoundland. As two mappers who are mapping the same regions, is there a way we can come to a working compromise instead of stalling on a question over tags? Even if it is something temporary, like I will not change the tags on roads you create and you do the same for roads I add?

SomeoneElse · 2018-07-19T12:52:12.000Z

Andrew_F_:

You revert back to personal attacks when talk about the edits do not go your way.

For the record - I’m not seeing the personal attacks that you talk about here. What I am seeing is an attempt to work out a solution to a necessarily difficult tagging problem.

Andrew_F · 2018-07-19T20:41:21.000Z

Just referring to references that I am following him around specifically or intentionally, tossing a phrase like vandalism when talking about my edits. Or quoting parts of my sentences try to rephrase or twist what I am saying or talking about having tagging wars.

The topic is when does a Track Road become unclassified and when does a road become Tertiary. GnasherNF is creating towns and city streets in the forest where there are only unmaintained woods roads. Yes the logging companies keep them up for 5 years or so at a time then they are abandoned for 20 or 30 or whatever length it takes for the new trees to reach a harvest height. No city or govenment looks after them therefore they are unmaintained track roads.

The pictures that GnasherNF posted as Tertiary are the only ones that should be unclassified from my view.

From the pictures and the links to the areas in question I’d like to see what way others a leaning.

There is not much point in myself and GnasherNF continuing to debate this because we clearly have different views and are not going to convince ourselves that the other person is right. I just edited the last couple of sentences because my previous wording seemed like I wanted the thread to be ended but I’d still like to hear from others.

SomeoneElse:

Andrew_F_:

You revert back to personal attacks when talk about the edits do not go your way.

For the record - I’m not seeing the personal attacks that you talk about here. What I am seeing is an attempt to work out a solution to a necessarily difficult tagging problem.

alester · 2018-07-20T17:40:45.000Z

Andrew_F_:

There is not much point in myself and GnasherNF continuing to debate this because we clearly have different views and are not going to convince ourselves that the other person is right.

I’m not sure what benefit there would be to continuing this discussion when the two primary contributors aren’t interested in having a good-faith discussion of the issues. GnasherNF doesn’t seem to be interested in addressing any of the points raised by any of the other contributors in this discussion and will seemingly continue to map as they always have. You - knowing full-well that a discussion of the matter is underway - continue to change highway classifications and give flimsy excuses like “well, I didn’t look at who made the edit,” rather than hold off on making any such changes until the discussion ran its course. Face it, you knew that there was a good chance that you were changing GnasherNF’s contributions and chose to inflame the situation anyway.

If you both decide that you’re ready and willing to actually discuss this issue, then maybe we can have a healthy discussion about highway tagging guidelines in Canada. Otherwise, I’ll just sit back here on the opposite side of the country and rest easy knowing that I won’t have to deal with the mess that is the OSM road network in Newfoundland.

Andrew_F · 2018-07-20T18:03:55.000Z

I do agree with you, both of us are too stubborn. Which again is why I started this thread. The concept was to see what way the community is leaning.

Unfortunately it looks like the few that posted are also split.

I never said or never meant that I did not know I would be changing edits made by GnasherNF, I meant that I am not going to sit down review the history of every edit to avoid his. Both of us do thousands of edits, I can’t begin to count how many times some one has changed an edit I made and since I was actually mapping in this area several years before GnasherNF I’d be will to bet that there are plenty of the roads that he is complaining about that were originally edited by me, but again I haven’t looked for that either.

As for mess? Roads are being mapped and improved. The primary and secondary highways are be taken out of the woods. So there is only the distinction of when to use Tertiary, and when to use track or unclassified. So the maps are improving, we just are not in agreement on a few types.

alester:

Andrew_F_:

There is not much point in myself and GnasherNF continuing to debate this because we clearly have different views and are not going to convince ourselves that the other person is right.

I’m not sure what benefit there would be to continuing this discussion when the two primary contributors aren’t interested in having a good-faith discussion of the issues. GnasherNF doesn’t seem to be interested in addressing any of the points raised by any of the other contributors in this discussion and will seemingly continue to map as they always have. You - knowing full-well that a discussion of the matter is underway - continue to change highway classifications and give flimsy excuses like “well, I didn’t look at who made the edit,” rather than hold off on making any such changes until the discussion ran its course. Face it, you knew that there was a good chance that you were changing GnasherNF’s contributions and chose to inflame the situation anyway.

If you both decide that you’re ready and willing to actually discuss this issue, then maybe we can have a healthy discussion about highway tagging guidelines in Canada. Otherwise, I’ll just sit back here on the opposite side of the country and rest easy knowing that I won’t have to deal with the mess that is the OSM road network in Newfoundland.

Viajero_Perdido · 2018-07-21T00:22:05.000Z

(Been away for a while; missed a lot of discussion for a topic that’s important to me…)

GnasherNF:

@SomeoneElse, here are some examples of the types of roads involved.

Unpaved Tertiary
1. Unpaved tertiary road in summer
2. Unpaved tertiary road in autumn
3. Unpaved tertiary road near dams and power generating stations
4. Unpaved tertiary road with bridge
5. Unpaved tertiary road in winter
6. Unpaved tertiary road in winter - in use

Unpaved Unclassified
1. Unpaved unclassified
2. Unpaved unclassified
3. Unpaved unclassified
4. Unpaved unclassified, typical of service roads leading to cabins
5. Unpaved unclassified, typical logging road that will deteriorate over time

Unpaved Track
1. Track beside paved highway
2. Track beside unpaved tertiary
3. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
4. Track through scrub underbrush
5. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
6. Track that appears overgrown from satellite photos
7. Track through small trees
8. Track on muddy ground
9. Track on rocky ground

This matches my understanding perfectly. An understanding gleaned from studying the wiki at various levels, studying common practice, and simply what seems to make sense to me.

As I think I’d mentioned, tertiary is for roads more “significant” than run-of-the-mill unclassifieds; suitable for going longer distances, and/or to multiple destinations. In another post, I think GnasherNF gave examples essentially backing this up. Note that in many areas, there are no “settlements”, thus no roads needed to connect them, but that doesn’t mean there are no tertiary-suitable roads. There may be gas plants, pulp mills, significant bridges, etc. A road crossing a rarely-bridged river easily qualifies as tertiary to me. A road with a nice curve instead of a corner, built for more traffic, again likely tertiary. It’s a judgement call.

Trying to push toward closure… I’d wholeheartedly support updating the wikis with these images as examples. How do we make decisions here? Here’s my vote.

n76 · 2018-07-21T03:03:53.000Z

alester:

GnasherNF:

@SomeoneElse, here are some examples of the types of roads involved.

Unpaved Tertiary
1. Unpaved tertiary road in summer
2. Unpaved tertiary road in autumn
3. Unpaved tertiary road near dams and power generating stations
4. Unpaved tertiary road with bridge
5. Unpaved tertiary road in winter
6. Unpaved tertiary road in winter - in use

Unpaved Unclassified
1. Unpaved unclassified
2. Unpaved unclassified
3. Unpaved unclassified
4. Unpaved unclassified, typical of service roads leading to cabins
5. Unpaved unclassified, typical logging road that will deteriorate over time

Unpaved Track
1. Track beside paved highway
2. Track beside unpaved tertiary
3. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
4. Track through scrub underbrush
5. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
6. Track that appears overgrown from satellite photos
7. Track through small trees
8. Track on muddy ground
9. Track on rocky ground

Like hadw said, it’s hard to determine whether tertiary is appropriate for the first batch without knowing if they’re used by locals for driving between towns or not. I suspect that they probably aren’t, in which case unclassified would be more appropriate.

As for the ones you consider unclassified, those appear to me to be clearly tracks with one of the higher track_type values (grade1 to 3). The ones you consider tracks can be left as such, but should be given the lower track_type values (grade3 to 5).

While I’ve been following this thread I never bothered to click through to these photos before.

I concur that the first batch might be unclassified or tertiary but you can’t tell from the photo alone: If the road carries through traffic then probably tertiary but otherwise probably unclassified. Just because it is wide enough for two lanes of traffic and is maintained does not mean that it can’t be unclassified.

The photos in the group labeled unclassified I’d mark as track as they look to be only wide enough for a single vehicle. I might tag them as service if they are short and are obviously used to access a building, etc. But I am tagging things that look like that as track in my area.

Some of the photos grouped under “unpaved track” look too narrow for even an ATV, I might consider tagging those as a path rather than a track.

Andrew_F · 2018-07-21T13:49:25.000Z

As for 1 or 2 lane all bridges on all the roads in these pictures are 1 lane. The logging companies don’t spend the resources making them 2 lane.

n76:

alester:

GnasherNF:

@SomeoneElse, here are some examples of the types of roads involved.

Unpaved Tertiary
1. Unpaved tertiary road in summer
2. Unpaved tertiary road in autumn
3. Unpaved tertiary road near dams and power generating stations
4. Unpaved tertiary road with bridge
5. Unpaved tertiary road in winter
6. Unpaved tertiary road in winter - in use

Unpaved Unclassified
1. Unpaved unclassified
2. Unpaved unclassified
3. Unpaved unclassified
4. Unpaved unclassified, typical of service roads leading to cabins
5. Unpaved unclassified, typical logging road that will deteriorate over time

Unpaved Track
1. Track beside paved highway
2. Track beside unpaved tertiary
3. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
4. Track through scrub underbrush
5. Track that was an unclassified road but has deteriorated
6. Track that appears overgrown from satellite photos
7. Track through small trees
8. Track on muddy ground
9. Track on rocky ground

Like hadw said, it’s hard to determine whether tertiary is appropriate for the first batch without knowing if they’re used by locals for driving between towns or not. I suspect that they probably aren’t, in which case unclassified would be more appropriate.

As for the ones you consider unclassified, those appear to me to be clearly tracks with one of the higher track_type values (grade1 to 3). The ones you consider tracks can be left as such, but should be given the lower track_type values (grade3 to 5).

While I’ve been following this thread I never bothered to click through to these photos before.

I concur that the first batch might be unclassified or tertiary but you can’t tell from the photo alone: If the road carries through traffic then probably tertiary but otherwise probably unclassified. Just because it is wide enough for two lanes of traffic and is maintained does not mean that it can’t be unclassified.

The photos in the group labeled unclassified I’d mark as track as they look to be only wide enough for a single vehicle. I might tag them as service if they are short and are obviously used to access a building, etc. But I am tagging things that look like that as track in my area.

Some of the photos grouped under “unpaved track” look too narrow for even an ATV, I might consider tagging those as a path rather than a track.