Talk:Tag:cycling=pump track
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add highway=*
?
We should specify in the documentation if highway=*
should be included or excluded. I think given these are usually dedicated short circuits, not designed for through traffic, that we don't add any highway=*
tag. Thoughts? Aharvey (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems implied by mention of
leisure=track
—— Kovposch (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- It unclear to me. I checked of the 2,055
cycleway=pump_track
there are 39 withhighway=path
and 36 withhighway=cycleway
and 18 withhighway=track
, so it's clear mostly it's not combined with ahighway=*
tag, but sometimes is. I'll update the page to say it's mostly not necessary to add ahighway=*
tag when usingleisure=track
. Aharvey (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It unclear to me. I checked of the 2,055

Use on nodes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Acycling%3Dpump_track&type=revision&diff=2842714&oldid=2801116 disabled the use on nodes, however if used on a site using leisure=pitch
you may want to as a first pass, add the site as a node so at least people can find the pump track, even without the full geometry. We allow shops as nodes, buildings as nodes, why not pump tracks? @Kubahaha: Aharvey (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, from what I see it's required to have
leisure=track
on object with this tag - and track cannot be tagged as a point. There was no significant usage on nodes, so I treated it as non-major change. Documentation does not enforce tagging sites (leisure=pitch
), but only tracks with this tag. - You might want to take a look at polish version of this page - that is new page I created, where I tried to show examples and describe everything.
- I disagree. It may be that the most sensible use is in combination with
leisure=track
, but that shouldn't prohibit using it withleisure=pitch
(for which node or area is allowed) – and that's still described on the page! (By the way: I can also imagine a combination withleisure=sports_centre
). I've therefore changed the page again. --Goodidea (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. It may be that the most sensible use is in combination with