Hello everybody.

I want to make a plea today as I've seen several occasions where this was clearly done wrong:
Please be careful with the distinction between highway=track and highway=path/footway. The description of "path" starts with this sentence: "A route open to the public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more wheels." So I think it's clear that highway=path should not be used for ways which were made for vehicles such as tractors, wood transporters etc (or cars if they are permitted).
But that's exactly my point, I've seen it many times now that good tracks with gravel or even asphalt surface were tagged as highway=path.
This is an important distinction in my opinion, I'm sure not only for me as a bicyclist. You know, for highway=path I assume it's a narrow path that may well not be suitable for my normal bike, but highway=track usually is and I can see from the tracktype if it's a good track or not.

And another plea while I'm at this topic:
Please make stubs if possible. This helps other mappers so much to judge if there is stuff missing or if there is a chance to find a connection which just isn't mapped yet, if there are stubs.
Sure, there are many occasions when you can't make them. If you're racing downhill with the bike, you're not going to stop to mark a stub. If you're driving by car, it's hard to map all stubs. I know that. But sometimes people obviously don't even try, for example they make a 90 degree left turn but don't map that the road continues straight on, too.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not angry about this or anything. It's better that there is a way mapped at all, without stubs or with the wrong classification, no question. It's just a plea so we will maybe get a better map faster than without people considering these two points.

Thank you very much for reading.

Markus