I don't see poor definition, neither climate-specific characteristics.

Yes, it can be misused as an importance rating.

Tracktype is used in combination with key:surface and key:trail_visibility. I encounter the combination of tracktype=2 & surface=sand quite frequently and this mis-tagging is already in the JOSM validation rules set.

A proper definition of tracktype <> importance PLUS a proper definition of allowed combinations (and subsequent validation) with surface and trail_visibility should be the preferrable solution

I think it makes sense - we could also use more patterns for admin level boundaries. Paved/unpaved classification rendering would be very useful here.

I don't see it misused as importance either. I agree with removing the many dash patterns as they're confusing, and I'm the one who introduced them originally.

Regarding misuse as a generic importance rating - the only verifiable criterion for tagging tracktype that is either known or documented is 'softness' of the ground - which is a criterion that does not apply at all for much of the earth surface, in particular in dry climate of all kinds. In those areas (and partly also in regions where the softness criterion would be applicable) mappers therefore often apply the tracktype rating as a generic importance rating to indicate the cartographic importance of the track - which will often be based on a local and subjective rating of how much the track seems to be used or how the 'quality' of the track is rated (f.s.v.o. quality that is subjective to the mapper). The source of confusion might have been that i did not clarify that with 'importance' i here meant cartographic importance and not some real world physical/functional importance.

But ultimately it of course does not matter that much - there seems to be broad agreement that rendering the paved/unpaved distinction instead of tracktype would be a desirable change.

I would suggest that the current tracktype=grade1 style could be used for paved tracks, and tracktype=grade4 style be used for unpaved tracks.

@imagico In the wiki definition of tracktype the primary definition is how well maintained it is, secondary is firmness, not softness.

I am more inclined to reduce the amount of tracktypes to only three and thereby reduce the rendering style as a consequence.

I also want to mention the original tracktype proposal, which made usage of very ambiguous and subjective definitions, with characteristics "blending" over with adjacent tracktypes

Therefore (IMHO):

• Tracktype 1: Abolish. A "paved" track contradicts itself as tracks are usually unpaved. Promote this to "road" (unclassified)
• Tracktype 2: Keep. Definition: Constructed with selected materials suitable for intended use. Well-maintained, compacted layer of gravel, etc., Firm surface all year round, Suitable for general traffic. Rendered with uninterrupted line
• Tracktype 2 & 3: Combine. Lightly constructed or created by clearing the trajectory from obstacles and/ or smoothing out holes and bumps. Only locally sourced materials are used. Firmness depends on season or weather. Not always suitable for general traffic. Rendered with dashed line.
• Tracktype 5: Keep. Unimproved, badly to non-maintained. May be unusable for part of the year. Only for special of purpose built vehicles. Rendered with dot-dash line style)

I assume that a propposal like this is partly out of scope of this Github project and may (also) be discussed on the OSM wiki proposal section

@TiliaJ - off-topic here, but i suggest to look at Verifiability.

@pnorman I wonder what was your original idea behind this implementation and why you no longer support it?

That it would provide useful information and be obvious from the rendering what it means. It wasn't - we have too many slightly different dash patterns in use.

I think unifying the rendering of footway, path, cycleway, track and bridleway is a very good idea.
But what about doing it the other way round and making the rendering of footway, cycleway, bridleway more similar to current rendering of track.
Suggestion:
paved similar to type1
compacted and fine_gravel similar to type2 or current paved cycleway
ground similar to type 3 or 4 or current unpaved footway
and informal=yes similar to type5

Having read the tracktype proposal some time ago, indeed I got the impression, that this mirrors the well-known openstreetmap catagorisization of roads into primary, secondary, tertiary. Only six instead of three types. Said that, only two bins for tracks, paved/unpaved look a bit few to me. Grade 5 tracks often are tagged on stuff that is mostly overgrown but still usable for pedestrian passage e.g.

Updated numbers on this:

• tracktype on highway=track: 8.6M
• surface on highway=track: 6.8M
• both: 3.7M