About a year ago, I actually encountered a use of highway=road as I aligned roads and added a bit more detail to the area at the south end of Mendocino National Forest. And what is a “road”? A placeholder! “Undefined” is actually quite defined comparatively. I investigated what it should be a placeholder for and found it was marking an ATV trail. It had been there a few years and could survive a few more.
Since JOSM doesn’t even seem to know one might want to set a value called “atv”, perhaps I should explain. Also called a “quad”, these narrow little four wheeled things can’t quite go everywhere a motorcycle can go, but they’ll get a lot more places than a 4x4 vehicle. There were 3 wheeled ones (probably still are in other places) but they were banned because they killed people more often due to rolling more easily. People grumbled at first. Three wheels is more fun! But they seem happy now. It hurts to roll over. Often tagging goes a little like this:
highway=[um]
atv=yes/designated
motorcar=no
maxwidth=1.27
(No side-by-sides, as the signs in Colorado often said! Those are often known as ATV or UTV.)
But is [um] a path or a track?
Well, the wiki on “path” is quite clear: “A highway=path is not for use by four-wheeled (two-track) vehicles.” Then it muddles a little: “A path-like way where four-wheeled vehicles are allowed, is likely better tagged as a highway=track or highway=service.” Only “likely”.
Meanwhile, on the wiki on “track” we find that track is “generally not appropriate” for “A trail or path that is not wide enough for a typical four-wheeled motor vehicle.” There is a footnote to clarify this: “A “typical four-wheeled motor vehicle” means a general purpose or average motor vehicle commonly used in a given region. The size and capability of what is considered a typical, common, or average vehicle varies around the world.”
Both are very sensible definitions. Both leave no space for the ATV trail in an area where the “motorcar” is the typical vehicle. But with the wiggle, it could go to either.
I did come to ATV trail while mapping an area I’d been in eastern Nevada and settled on marking it as “path” for the simple reason that one would typically have to stop and change vehicles to drive it legally, even if their standard transport is high clearance, short wheelbase. However, it doesn’t do a good job of differentiating those routes from the very different vehicle=no paths of the wilderness beside it.
There does seem to be a wiki page for atv and it’s badly written and doesn’t think much of proposals. It decidedly comes down on the side of using “track”, but without any justification. I’d really rather not sully my precious “paths” (see user name with “hike” in it) with the likes of an ATV trail, but must admit “path” really may be the best fit. Sorry wiki page editor. People will try to drive it with their Hummer if you mark it as a track.
I find myself wanting a… highway=narrow_track, perhaps. (What’s just one more? Proliferate further!)
Still, motorcycle trails will always have the above problem. This is what access tags are for. And a good renderer.
Poking around Overpass for things marked atv=designated, I’m finding a lot of tracks, so perhaps others haven’t come to the same conclusions I have, or they read that wiki page. I’m finding a lot of other modes being “designated” on those tracks. That’s probably not right since “foot” and “bicycle” are usually “allowed, discouraged” by the Forest Service on their ATV and motorcycle trails. For atv=yes, I see more of a mix, and some of the tracks do allow larger vehicles. Non-standard tagging all over the place. There’s a “4wd” (instead of “4wd_only” or “ohv”) and “car” (instead of “motorcar”). It’s all a muddled mess.
What is typically used with both motorcar=no and atv=yes? I should be able to make Overpass do this? I sure can’t make Taginfo. What is the “correct” way if one really thinks about it?
Fundamentally, neither fits. “Road.” I understand.
Just don’t go marking “Jeep trails” as “paths” the way the Forest Service sometimes does. I see the sense of blurring the differentiation between “path” and “track” as CyclOSM does. Also of having a map focused on one transport type. I just wish there was a pull down to change between transport types.