Should "highway=track" records exist in CityStrides?

I read this topic with some interest earlier in the year but it didn’t really change my street count. However, having really enjoyed incorporating a track in to my run last week I was surprised how few tracks in my area had nodes.

The “issue” is that in the UK many of these are instead tagged as highway=bridleway (and technically the track I ran probably should be tagged likewise). Playing around on overpass the tag seems to be used quite sparingly in the US and reading the wiki Tag:highway=bridleway - OpenStreetMap Wiki it seems that the UK designation is more aligned to highway=track elsewhere but then in Germany they are for horses only. I’ll be running more of them during the summer but interested to hear others thoughts if they should be considered for inclusion on CS?

If it’s gated, shouldn’t be an issue to put a gate on OSM. But if it just says “Private way” is that really enforceable? There are so many “Private ways” in Boston, MA, USA, and I was sheepish about running them at first, and then I just went for it and no one has ever said anything. That also extends to a long private neighborhood road in Brookline, MA, USA that explicitly said “no joggers” – I went on a day where it was raining :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’m curious what road that is in Brookline. (I lived there for 22 years, but well before I became a runner and citystrider.)

I assumed there was going to be some angry citizen waiting at the end of every “private way”. But at some point I did a bit of a search, and turned up this article. Good to go.


Sargent Road, Codman Road, Sargent Causeway, and Sargent Beechwood, all of which appear to have been edited by someone else in OSM (rightly) to be private now. When I was running in there in April 2020 there was some construction going on, I think (parts of) this neighborhood may be gated now.

Seems to me that the Sargent Beechwood should be accessible to runners and pedestrians though according to the town website: Facilities • Brookline, MA • CivicEngage

1 Like

As an example to my earlier post on bridleways. This morning I ran this path on my route.

This track is well laid, a good running surface and is named. But as it is a bridleway, it gets excluded from CS but would be included if it was classified as track (which it was until it was “upgraded” on OSM)

Refreshing this topic as I have another example: Oosterringdijk

This is mainly is perfectly runnable footpath that is tagged as such in OSM, and thus ignored. However, there is an unofficial muddy bit at the end that goes nowhere, and this has been tagged as track, and has now been included. I don’t mind the inclusion of tracks, but it seems wrong that the worst part of a path is included while the rest is not.

So walking is OK? :grin:

@tev4 Good article. Million dollar homes on a crappy road, and they like it. Must be harsh on their under-carriages. Loved the tax aspect. Maintenance aside, who pays the taxes on the land?

Dallas, TX is notorious for potholes, and maybe the city has the same approach: traffic calming. :grin:

Some of the parks and trail areas near me have roads/paths that are listed in OSM as track roads. Two examples are Ram’s Head Road in Medford MA, and Coal Road in Belmont MA.

These particular designations do seem reasonably accurate in OSM. (Ram’s Head Rd is listed as a fire road on the park’s map; Coal Rd would probably be barely passable on an ATV).

I am wondering, though, if these make sense to include as streets in CS. In these two cases, anyway, they are runnable but I would say that they are definitely not in the spirit of “city streets”. But I wonder if others have experience with streets marked as track roads, and whether they think it makes sense to include or not. I am probably a bit biased by living in a highly urban area, so these seem like “definitely not streets”. But I wonder if in a more rural town, more streets would be like this.

I can aknowladge what you say in the end. In the rural parts, those streets make up a LOT of the CS load. I am glad they are in CS

As someone that runs in a rural area, I think they need to be included. If certain parts aren’t passable on foot, you can update that designation in OSM and I don’t think it will be included in CS. But parts that can be run or walked should be included.

Aside to James: Sorry I did not find this thread before posting my new thread! I did try! :sweat_smile:

To you and anyone else reading along - do not feel bad about “duplicate” posts. The “move post” feature in this forum is simple to use, and it’s not always easy to find past conversations for various reasons. :+1:

1 Like