Talk:Tag:leisure=track

Name Conflicts

We shouldn't use track for that, because track is our main term for several kinds of ways in other context. I would prefer leisure=race_track to prevent misunderstanding. --Hurdygurdyman 08:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Filled multipolygons vs centerlines

How should these be mapped? I'm seeing them mapped as multipolygon relations and simple centerlines. Personally, I think the multipolygons make these too complex, and the centerlines are more appropriate. Oddityoverseer (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've sometimes used this approach. --Stalfur (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like this. It's using a field, with a centerline for the track, and a polygon for the stadium. Oddityoverseer (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If mapped as an area, it should not be the centerline anymore, it should be the outline of the track. My preference for the typical oval 400m-course is a multipolygon with two parallel lines (efficiently created in JOSM), leaving the 'inner' empty so it can hold the ballsport pitch and sometimes the smaller tracks/areas for jumping and throwing. example --Polarbear w (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not the centerline? That's how we map most other linear features. I don't really care which way we do it. I'd just like a standard. Oddityoverseer (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If you consider it an area, you would map the outline. If you consider it a linear feature - not mapping the area - you would use a centerline. But as many renderers default to area, outline works better for me.--Polarbear w (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I found an example of mapping the outline instead of the centerline here. Oddityoverseer (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Another example would be this--geozeisig (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Some 27% of tracks are relations. Therefore 'inuse' and should be an accepted method. Warin61 (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Leisure??

Why "leisure" category? Some people use running tracks for hard workouts, and for competition. That doesn't sound leisurely to me. (At this point, I have no suggestion for improvement. I just wanted to express my surprise to find the "leisure" tag for this.) Jogger2 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I assume most people do that in their spare time. leisure=* "is for places people go in their spare time." --Hufkratzer (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

leisure is also used for sporting pitches, like tennis, soccer, basketball. Some of these are paid professionals, but most are playing for social reasons. Warin61 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Inside track areas

The area inside the marked running track is made of the same material. Should it also be part of the track area? If not, what should it be?

--Lectrician1 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I would not make it part of the track area. IMHO you could add it as a leisure=pitch sport=athletic area because it is used for warming up, sometimes throwing etc. --Alfons234 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Varying lane count

Some tracks have different number of lanes depending on the distance, usually 100m (straight part) having more lanes than 200m/400m (oval part), e.g. 8 vs. 6 or 6 vs. 4. How to map this properly? --Mikedld (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The leisure=track line must be split. It's the same as highway=* roads.
This shows how drawing leisure=track + area=yes alone (and some even removing the leisure=track line) isn't a good solution. On the contrary, it's possible to have multiple "intersecting" leisure=track lines inside the polygon, similar to how 2+ highway=* lines can exists inside a area:highway=* intersection. This means you don't need to need to split the polygon meaninglessly, or draw 2 overlapping polygons. The 2 converging leisure=track lines will provide directional info on how the lanes are oriented, making it routable and functional.
—— Kovposch (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)