I almost always put `surface=compacted` on these. Here, there are only rare loose rocks. Personally, if one can bike there without rattling and sliding on rocks, then it's most likely not gravel.

To elaborate, there are very few roads that have actual gravel on them, because cars very quickly compact, break and disperse the rocks. Such gravel roads last no more than a season before becoming like this example. In general, I wouldn't put `gravel` until most of the road is actually covered in rocks and they move as you step/bike/drive on them. Basically - rocks are touching each other and forming a layer.

Of course, this becomes difficult because many roads do indeed start with a gravel layer, but soon turn into what you see here. This is why a lot of mappers do put gravel everywhere if they see any rocks. As I mentioned - not completely incorrect, but also not that useful for data consumers.

To give you a more complex example, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=177516025291859 This road was repaired by adding a layer of rocks in potholes and the traffic here isn't high enough to turn it into uniform road. Is this gravel? Who knows :) I would probably agree that `gravel` here is okay despite only being in patches and I think most mappers would indeed use `gravel` here. But this will eventually turn into `compacted` unless regularly maintained.

I think I have only seen "full" gravel that lasted more than a summer may be a few times around Saulkrasti and it was someone just placing rocks in front of their property to avoid dust or water buildup or for temporary access like construction vehicles. For example, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=577720461150720 At the intersection, you can already see that rocks are getting crushed and turning into a more uniform mass.