According to the surface wiki, concrete:lanes is typically categorized as a paved surface. If no tracktype value is specified (except for grade1 ), the iD editor treats these lanes the same as regular concrete and asphalt roads.
Yet, in many instances, these concrete lanes in my area are primarily located within farmland and mountainous regions, serving as routes accessible only to high-clearance pickup trucks. Often, they exhibit a smoothness rating of very_bad or even horrible, with a particularly rough middle section. Straying off these lanes can easily result in a truck getting stuck.
I’m having trouble selecting the appropriate tracktype value from the wiki because the majority of the road surface in this area is soft ground, while the narrow concrete lanes themselves have a hard surface.
Which tracktype value is the most suitable for these concrete lane tracks?
Truck navigation software should probably exercise caution when choosing ways with surface=concrete:lanes, then. That’s no reason to break navigation for everyone else by implying that the route has a worse surface quality than it does.
Ich habe hier für grade1 abgestimmt. Die Aussage concrete:lanes sollte meiner Meinung nach genügen um anzugeben das ich vorsichtig fahren muss um nicht von der Spur anzukommen. Wenn ein entsprechendes smoothness gesetzt ist wird ebenfalls verhindert das einfach PKW dort gut fahren können.
Fahrer eines Dreirades sollten ebenfalls berĂĽcksichtigt werden. Das ich als Motorrad Fahrer ebenfalls umsichtig in der Spur fahren muss ergibt sich ebenfalls aus concrete:lanes.
Das alles muss natĂĽrlich eine entsprechende Software anzeigen und ein Routenplaner berĂĽcksichtigen.
I’m surprised so many voted for grade1. The wiki describes grade1 as “solid”, grade2 as “mostly solid”, and grade3 as an “even mixture of hard and soft materials”. The concrete lanes are clearly solid, but the space in between is not. I could see an argument that the solid concrete lanes cover more of the surface than the soft ground in between and therefore it’s grade2, but describing these roadways as fully solid material doesn’t seem accurate to me. Perhaps the wiki descriptions are incomplete?
Thanks, everyone, for sharing your opinion and vote.
The results show that most agree that tracktype=grade1 should be used for all paved tracks with surface=concrete:lanes, and only smoothness should be used to indicate how suitable they are for 4-wheel vehicles.
(Moving reponses out of the small comments for clarity)
The picture on the wiki representing tracktype=grade3 looks to me like the wheel tracks are surface=compacted without much if any loose gravel on top. I interpret this as “solid” or “hard”. The middle is suface=grass, which I interpret as “not solid” or “soft”. So to me this looks like an approximately equal amount of hard and soft materials. This is how I have always interpreted tracktype=grade3.
Interesting. I hadn’t taken the word “mixture” so literally in the description, but I guess you may be right. I’ve also always considered the full width of the track. This wiki doesn’t say “only the wheel contact area” so I never would have interpreted it that way.
The wiki says grade1 is “Usually a paved surface” (emphasis mine). I’ve always interpreted this to mean that a high quality surface=compacted (very hard and smooth) would also qualify as grade1. If that is not the case, should the word “usually” be removed or perhaps changed to “always”?
