Lots of the detail is there already
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths Never know, they might even get to like mapping and start adding lots more detail like “operator” to existing tacks and notes to those under rehabilitation Cheers - Phil From: Ben Kelley <ben.kel...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 3:44 PM To: OSM-Au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison In the context of the tracks, there is always the risk that if you delete something that you don't think should be there, that someone else re-maps it because they see it in the aerial photo. (As we discussed.) I guess the best is that we could detail a preferred approach (e.g. in Australian tagging guidelines). I think it's clear that there are a number of views on this though. Then at least if something happens that differs from the preferred approach, it makes it clearer whether a revert is justified. - Ben. On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote: DWG have received a "Request for a Liaison Officer: To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service" This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?) What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like this - here / Forum / Discord? Question posed in all three places Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
