On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> 31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org: > > And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here" > is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With > that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could > plaster the map with tourism=viewpoint. > > "Only places signed as viewpoint" > would remove valuable data in Poland, > and solving problem that AFAIK is not > existing. At least in places where I visited > (except rare cases). > There isn't a lot of signage on most of the trails I hike. Eliminating unsigned viewpoints would impoverish the map. On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 8:52 AM Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: > Maybe the problem is the name of the tag? Tag names can be misleading. > They aren't just metadata. They aren't *just* metadata, but we have a long history of enshrining misleading tags by usage. (*cough* amenity=prison *cough*) Rather than getting into fine and subjective distinctions about whether a viewpoint is 'intended' for tourism, I'm willing to accept that the existing tagging simply announces 'there's a view' here and use access tagging to indicate whether enjoying the view is invited, controlled, deprecated, or forbidden. For those who claim that 'off-limits attractions should not be mapped' I offer a few corner cases, to try to establish the contours of what we're talking about. OFF TRAIL, LAWFUL, UNSIGNED (1) There's a ledge (that I've not mapped) between Balsam Cap and Friday Mountain near https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/41.9810/-74.3610 that offers a superb view of the Ashokan Valley and eastward as far as the mountains of northwestern Connecticut and western Massachusetts. It's well known to local hikers. It's in a wilderness area. No trail serves it, and there is no signage. Off-trail hiking is permitted in the area in question, but hikers are cautioned to avoid the inadvertent creation of 'herd paths' (=='use paths', 'social trails', ...). Local trail maps (from New York/New Jersey Trail Conference, Appalachian Mountain Club, National Geographic) show the viewpoint. Should we? I've refrained, but I also wouldn't delete it if someone else were to map it. (I personally mostly try to follow the guidelines in https://www.trailgroove.com/issue36.html?autoflip=61. I'm less afraid of my personal writing or posting of photos having a terrible impact, since I don't have nearly Paul's following, but I've taken to being more circumspect after reading that article and the blog posts that led up to it, and I recognize that mapping on OSM might have a disproportionately greater risk.) Map, or not map? OFF TRAIL, QUASI--LAWFUL, UNSIGNED (2) There are several ghost towns and ruins of abandoned 19th-century industry in Harriman State Park. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4080499 There are several guidebooks that describe them in some detail. Hiking off-trail in that park is formally prohibited. Nevertheless, whenever I've visited one of the ranger stations and asked something like, "would it be all right if I lead a party of six to the Surebridge and Hogencamp mines starting from Lake Skannatati?" the answer has been, "sure, have a good time!" There has been exactly once that I was challenged by a policeman for unlawful hiking, while coming onto a road from one of the old mine roads, now grown to trees. I said, "Oh, sorry, when I asked at Tiorati Circle, the desk corporal said it was all right." He answered with a smile, 'OK, you're good!" Essentially, the prohibition of off-trail hiking is because of the fact that the area has lots of open mine shafts, cellar holes, hundred-year-abandoned rusting mining equipment, and so on: quite dangerous indeed if you aren't expecting them. It also gets a horde of novice hikers from New York City and New Jersey. The combination could be deadly. The solution is simply the weak 'security by obscurity' - if you know that permission is routinely granted, you also are highly likely to know what and where the hazards are. To map the ruins, or not to map? Another story from the same park, illustrating the overlap between 'permitted' and 'forbidden': There was one time I was going in on a Friday evening for a winter backpack, and heard a ranger at the parking area telling the couple ahead of me, "the park's closed!" I was sufficiently puzzled that I stuck around until after they left, and said to the ranger, "what's going on?" He asked, "where were you headed?" "I'm meeting some buddies up at the campsite on Fingerboard Mountain, and we're planning to bum around on Saturday, make camp at West Mountain and then hit the Bear Mountain Inn for Sunday brunch. I don't mind night-hiking to Fingerboard, the reflective trail markers are easy to spot!" He said, "oh, no problem, you go in!" "Huh?" "Oh, those two didn't have proper gear and had no clue where they were going. You've obviously been out in this stuff before (pointing to my crampons, ski poles, and other gear lashed on my pack) and you know your way around. When I tell the city folks, 'I can't let you in, you don't have adequate gear or training,' they argue. When I tell them, 'park's closed,' they go home. We do almost one rescue a week here, and we would do a lot more if we didn't try to keep out the people that have no business here." ON-TRAIL, PUBLIC ACCESS BY PERMIT, UNSIGNED (3) There are some quite nice views to be had from the cliffs above Pratt Rock on the trail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357551650. (I have work to do there: Pratt Rock itself is misplaced and mistagged.) This is posted as New York City water supply land. This year, public access is allowed. In years gone by, it was 'access by permit only'. Permits are free and relatively easy to obtain on the land manager's web site, so the access might as well be public (They basically serve to acknowledge that you've seen a copy of the rules for usage, and agree to abide by them.) The trail up there serves basically only two uses: the viewpoints, and trout-fishing access to the east side of Huntersfield Creek. The trail is unblazed, and there's no signage anywhere, but that's not unusual around here. To map the viewpoints (or, indeed, the trail), or not to map? ON-TRAIL, PRIVATE, SIGNED (4) There are a bunch of fine views (from signed overlooks) on the grounds of the Mohonk Mountain House resort and the adjacent Mohonk Preserve. (see the area around https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.2384&lon=-74.1219#map=16/41.7657/-74.1559). This is very much private property. It is open to the guests of the resort, and to those who have purchased day passes. While it's likely that someone who, say, hikes in from Minnewaska State Park, will pass unchallenged, if they catch you, you *will* be ejected and fined. Of course, given that it is a tourist facility whose chief attractions are the spa-like facilities at the house, the golf course, the swimming at the lake and the hiking and climbing on the grounds, these overlooks are visited by many tourists. Thus 'access=private' (or perhaps access=customers) and mapped 'tourism=*' are entirely appropriate in combination here. At least I think so. Do others agree? ON ROAD, PUBLIC, NOT SPECIFICALLY SIGNED, PARKING PROVIDED ON-TRAIL, LAWFUL, UNSIGNED (5) There's an overlook with a view from Massachusetts to the Adirondacks at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20087566. It's misspelt and mismapped (it's a parking aisle, not a residential street), because I've simply not yet penetrated that far into the TIGER desert. I was up there a week ago, and observed that the sign onto 'Sienic[sic] View Road' was simply labeled 'Parking Area', with no mention of the view. But there's virtually no reason other than the view that a driver would want to park there! In fact, I didn't bother, myself, since a few hours earlier, I'd been enjoying the even finer views from Windham High Peak https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357597553 and Burnt Knob https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357551650. The latter views are mapped, They are not indicated in any way on the signage; signs at the trailheads and junctions give directions and distances to summits, trail junctions and shelters. They're a big part of the reason that most hikers are up on the Escarpment. (Also, remember, that unlike Alpine regions where sweeping views are commonplace, most hiking trails in Eastern North America are in the 'green tunnel' where vegetation obscures the views. Good viewpoints are infrequent and all the more rewarding for their rarity) Which, if any, of these viewpoints should be mapped? ON [CLOSED] TRAIL, PRIVATE, FORMERLY PERMISSIVE (OR YES) (6) There's a fine viewpoint - or at least once was - at a cliff named Roemer's Nose south of Thacher Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6447769 on the former Long Path route beyond the end of the mapped segment at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97575663. The trail once enjoyed a (formal or informal, I never learnt) easement across the private land there. A new landowner purchased the land, unilaterally (and possibly unlawfully) revoked the easement, and blocked the trail. Following an incident where shots were reportedly fired (!), the trail conference closed the trail, and the park posted the trail shelter https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7792760014 as "no camping", which rather defeated its purpose. Hikers on the Long Path must now detour on Saw Mill Road, Long Road, Elm Drive, Bush Drive and Beaver Dam Road. They must plan their stops carefully, because the elimination of the trail shelter has left no opportunity to make camp lawfully or obtain lodging between Cole Hill https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6378266 and a detour to Thompson's Lake. Many, in practice, try to make it from the shelter on the Forti farm https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4882275960 to a car pickup in Altamont in a single day. The viewpoint is presumably still there, and at any point the landowner might have a change of heart, might be caught committing an offense (in the alleged incident, the hikers did not see who fired the shots), or the property might change hands again. Should the feature that is still there be mapped, or should OSM say that it doesn't exist because of the intransigent landowner and alleged criminal behaviour by parties unknown? I understand that most nations are tidier than the US, and that objective rules like 'viewpoints must be signed and have legally mandated public access' work there. The US is not as tidy, and there's a range of cases such as I've described that are unavoidably subjective. I'm kind of constrained; I map the country that I have, not the one that I'd perhaps like to have, with the best judgment that I can muster. If I followed Frederik's guidance, I'd almost never map a viewpoint. But where I live, there's a wide gulf between "map only viewpoints that have signs or benches" and "map every pimple of rock that might be pretty." Beyond the admittedly subjective, "is the view the reason that people come here?" I don't have much to guide me, which is why I tend to come down on the side of, "map the viewpoint if it appears significant, and map the access constraints." -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
