Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Hi Frederik This reminds me of a thread that I started on this list about 2 years ago. It related to illegal mountain bike tracks in Lysterfield Park, Victoria Australia. The construction and use of unauthorized trails is illegal with large penalties (though I have never heard of a prosecution). An issue is that mapping these trails encourages use and consequent environmental damage. There is also the risk that innocent users will think that a mapped trail is legal and get prosecuted. The compromise was to mark the trails as access=no but not delete them till they had been made untrafficable for sufficient time to become overgrown. Since then the pressure from the mountain bike community to has map everything has reduced, presumably the mountain bike community has realized that OSM is one of the tools the authorities use to locate illegal trails. The policy in OSM to map everything that exists ignores the fact that not all mapping is in the community interest. I would like to see a more nuanced policy. We might see a policy that addresses the following Private land and the right of privacy Military land National Parks Other public land. Thanks Tony Hi, the DWG was drawn into an edit war regarding several paths that were mapped in this area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.3740/150.8761 The argument is about in how far the (largely north-south running) paths are "illegal" and whether they need to be removed from the map because they would lead to people trespassing. The argument is two-fold; part applies to the paths that are on private land where, I understand, it is the land owner's prerogative to allow or disallow whatever they want, and another part applies to the paths that run into NPWS managed conservation lands. These paths were originally tagged "foot=yes" and with no further access descriptions; one had an "mtb:scale" added. From reading the Illawara Escarpment Plan of Management (https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/Parks-plans-of-management/illawarra-escarpment-state-conservation-area-plan-management-180505.pdf) I get the impression that mountainbiking on any paths not explicitly open for it is illegal. But what about walking - the plan says a lot about maintained walking tracks but it does *not* explicitly say that walking is limited to these. There's also a published "draft strategy" for mountain biking in the area, however I don't know in how far a draft strategy would influence the current legal situation. Anyway, for the time being I have added an access=no to the paths on private land because the landowner doesn't want people to use them and I guess it is their prerogative; and I've removed the explicit foot=yes on the other paths (becasue I'm not sure) and added a "bicycle=no" to close them for mountainbiking. My changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74355243#map=16/-34.3750/150.8730 I would however be grateful for any input from the Australian community on this matter. I've also been told that NPWS were keenly looking to sue whoever publishes "illegal" trails or uploads them to OSM; in fact such a legal threat was the reason why DWG got involved in the first place. Bye Frederik DWG Ticket Ticket#201909011071 -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Tony, On 9/11/19 21:31, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > The construction and use of unauthorized trails is illegal with large > penalties (though I have never heard of a prosecution). Are there sources that are not restricted by copyright that we could use to determine which trails are authorized and which are not? > The policy in OSM to map everything that exists ignores the fact that > not all mapping is in the community interest. I would like to see a more > nuanced policy. There are indeed some nuances, for example there is general agreement in the community not to map the nesting places of rare birds (lest eggs be stolen), and a similar general agreement exists for things like women's refuges. This is in addition to the respect for privacy that is shared by most mappers - where the term "privacy" is generally interpreted narrowly to mean "things about your life that you cannot see from the aerial image". Some people come to DWG claiming privacy because someone has traced their driveway from aerial imagery; this is not usually a complaint we entertain. But the things I mentioned are not really codified anywhere, and there are often corner cases that lead to lengthy debates. A remotely related case for example was in Germany recently, where forest management and tourism authorities had agreed to a careful scheme of "trekking" camp sites in forests where camping would not normally be allowed. Their plan was to keep the exact location of these places secret, and require prior booking by users, who would only upon booking be told where exactly to find the spot. This was part of the compromise they reached - the forest authorities didn't want any people camping, the tourism people wanted to offer something for nature lovers, so they agreed on this scheme which at least promised that the places would not be overrun. You can imagine how the story went on - things being kept secret piqued the interest of mappers, and before too long all the places were mapped (tourism=camp_site, camp_site=basic, backcountry=yes). The authorities complained, but of course they have no legal recourse... still, this led to some discussion in the German mapping community in how far official wishes/demands for secrecy should be respected. We certainly cannot respect *every* local government law or else we'd likely have to purge our maps of all content in China, North Korea, and some Arab countries, delete all military areas in many others... It is an interesting topic for a general discusssion. Though in this concrete case I wonder how to determine whether what looks like a footpath in the Conservation Lands is legal to use or not... should *all* the trails drawn in the area be marked access=no? Should we ask the adminstration for a list? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 06:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 9/11/19 21:31, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > > The construction and use of unauthorized trails is illegal with large > > penalties (though I have never heard of a prosecution). > > Are there sources that are not restricted by copyright that we could use > to determine which trails are authorized and which are not? > Not that I'm aware of. NPWS do publish tracks as CC BY open data and they have completed the waiver to allow OSM to use this data (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue), however local knowledge and local surveys should still prevail. > It is an interesting topic for a general discusssion. Though in this > concrete case I wonder how to determine whether what looks like a > footpath in the Conservation Lands is legal to use or not... should > *all* the trails drawn in the area be marked access=no? Should we ask > the adminstration for a list? If no access is the intention then they should put up signage saying no access, then we can map that access accordingly. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
On 12/9/19 05:31, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Since then the pressure from the mountain bike community to has map everything has reduced, presumably the mountain bike community has realized that OSM is one of the tools the authorities use to locate illegal trails. That's only going to work if they all learn not to use Strava. Two minutes is all it take for the authorities to login and see everywhere in the 'Gong where there are MTB tracks. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 13:45, Greg Lauer wrote: > Hi Frederick, > > There is 'authoratative' data available for NPWS estate - > https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset?q=NPWS+track===_format=_id==score+desc%2C+metadata_modified+desc > and > we have a waiver - > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue. The > problem is that the data is not up to date, and in may cases conflicts with > the 'on-the-ground' conditions. For example a track marked as open in the > database has closed signs and vice versa, or a local Ranger may decide to > close the track. This is common problem with data made available from state > agencies as in many cases there is reluctance to make data public (or they > don't have the resources to manage it). > +1 local mapping on the ground should prevail, and the open data can be used as a guide to local mapping not as an absolute authority, for exactly the reasons you've mentioned. > These issues around the mapping of tracks has been an ongoing issue for as > along as people have been creating maps! I am unsure how NWPS think that > can sue someone for creating a track on a digital database (but this is not > the first time they have threatened this). I believe there was an issue > with a commercial publisher a few years back regarding some tracks in > National Park that had been closed. That said, hopefully by engaging with > these agencies we can effect change. > I agree. I do hope that if NPWS are interested in seeing OSM data more accurate they can join our community and we can work together. We already have NSW government departments working together with the OSM community to improve mapping (Transport for NSW). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > the DWG was drawn into an edit war regarding several paths that were > mapped in this area: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.3740/150.8761 > > The argument is about in how far the (largely north-south running) paths > are "illegal" and whether they need to be removed from the map because > they would lead to people trespassing. > The argument is two-fold; part applies to the paths that are on private > land where, I understand, it is the land owner's prerogative to allow or > disallow whatever they want, and another part applies to the paths that > run into NPWS managed conservation lands. > > These paths were originally tagged "foot=yes" and with no further access > descriptions; one had an "mtb:scale" added. > > From reading the Illawara Escarpment Plan of Management > ( > https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/Parks-plans-of-management/illawarra-escarpment-state-conservation-area-plan-management-180505.pdf > ) > I get the impression that mountainbiking on any paths not explicitly > open for it is illegal. But what about walking - the plan says a lot > about maintained walking tracks but it does *not* explicitly say that > walking is limited to these. > > There's also a published "draft strategy" for mountain biking in the > area, however I don't know in how far a draft strategy would influence > the current legal situation. > > Anyway, for the time being I have added an access=no to the paths on > private land because the landowner doesn't want people to use them and I > guess it is their prerogative; and I've removed the explicit foot=yes on > the other paths (becasue I'm not sure) and added a "bicycle=no" to close > them for mountainbiking. My changeset: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74355243#map=16/-34.3750/150.8730 > > I would however be grateful for any input from the Australian community > on this matter. > I'll break it down into two issues, 1. mapping the paths, 2. setting the access restrictions. On the first issue, my stance is that mapping these trails is fair game, regardless of the legal ownership of the land and/or any access restrictions. If there is a path on the ground it should be in OSM's database, and would be harmful to delete and any edits which outright deleted paths which do exist on the ground just because of access or use restrictions should be blocked/reverted. We have suitable lifecycle tags https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix which can be added to paths which have been abandoned and no longer in use but still have evidence on the ground. Paths which have been used in the past but are now closed for remediation back to natural bushland can and should be mapped as abandoned: or demolished:. This is important information for researches and the public to understand conservation and remediation efforts taking place. On the second issue regarding access restrictions, if the NPWS puts up signage restricting cycling then we can correctly mark this with bicycle=no, this could be at the path level or on park wide signage. If there is a private property no access sign, then that would be access=no. It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the ground, and it appears in this case that the local mapper Zhent, has been mapping based on local knowledge. > I've also been told that NPWS were keenly looking to sue whoever > publishes "illegal" trails or uploads them to OSM; in fact such a legal > threat was the reason why DWG got involved in the first place. > Gosh that's a big claim, if either individual contributors or OSMF are being threatened like that, can this be backed up with evidence so we as the community know what's happening and determine what if any support can be provided to those being threatened? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Hi, On 12.09.19 06:27, Andrew Harvey wrote: > It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the > ground, and it appears in this case that the local mapper Zhent, has > been mapping based on local knowledge. I have a feeling that Zhent's "foot=yes" might not mean "there is a sign here allowing access" but more "I walked here and wasn't arrested" ;) Question is, can we assume that any path leading into Conservation Lands that does *not* have a sign forbidding something, allows it? Probably not - NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for new "things that look like paths". Mind you, some of the paths that were added here have "sac_scale" and "trail_visibility" tags that do not sound like these are obvious trails actually prepared by NPWS for walkers. This might also tie in with the concept of "default rules" - for example, if "everyone knows that horse riding is only permitted on explicitly signed trails" in Conservation Lands then do we apply a blanket horse=no to everything else, or not... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Hi Frederick, There is 'authoratative' data available for NPWS estate - https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset?q=NPWS+track===_format=_id==score+desc%2C+metadata_modified+desc and we have a waiver - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue. The problem is that the data is not up to date, and in may cases conflicts with the 'on-the-ground' conditions. For example a track marked as open in the database has closed signs and vice versa, or a local Ranger may decide to close the track. This is common problem with data made available from state agencies as in many cases there is reluctance to make data public (or they don't have the resources to manage it). I think your solution is appropriate in the circumstances but will make the following comments. 1. Although we can mark as private or similar it really is up to the rendering engine of the application that the user is looking at to display this attribution (closed etc.). A quick a review of some of the common applications seems to indicate this is a problem. 2. Other 'authoritative' data (for example https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ and the 1:25,000 topographic maps) all showing conflicting data around track and very little information on access rights. 3. The area in question is managed by three entities - state government, local government and private landholders and they all have conflicting views on access to the area. These issues around the mapping of tracks has been an ongoing issue for as along as people have been creating maps! I am unsure how NWPS think that can sue someone for creating a track on a digital database (but this is not the first time they have threatened this). I believe there was an issue with a commercial publisher a few years back regarding some tracks in National Park that had been closed. That said, hopefully by engaging with these agencies we can effect change. Thanks for taking the time to look into this and present an solution. Greg On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 6:23:34 AM AEST, Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org> wrote: Tony, On 9/11/19 21:31, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > The construction and use of unauthorized trails is illegal with large > penalties (though I have never heard of a prosecution). Are there sources that are not restricted by copyright that we could use to determine which trails are authorized and which are not? > The policy in OSM to map everything that exists ignores the fact that > not all mapping is in the community interest. I would like to see a more > nuanced policy. There are indeed some nuances, for example there is general agreement in the community not to map the nesting places of rare birds (lest eggs be stolen), and a similar general agreement exists for things like women's refuges. This is in addition to the respect for privacy that is shared by most mappers - where the term "privacy" is generally interpreted narrowly to mean "things about your life that you cannot see from the aerial image". Some people come to DWG claiming privacy because someone has traced their driveway from aerial imagery; this is not usually a complaint we entertain. But the things I mentioned are not really codified anywhere, and there are often corner cases that lead to lengthy debates. A remotely related case for example was in Germany recently, where forest management and tourism authorities had agreed to a careful scheme of "trekking" camp sites in forests where camping would not normally be allowed. Their plan was to keep the exact location of these places secret, and require prior booking by users, who would only upon booking be told where exactly to find the spot. This was part of the compromise they reached - the forest authorities didn't want any people camping, the tourism people wanted to offer something for nature lovers, so they agreed on this scheme which at least promised that the places would not be overrun. You can imagine how the story went on - things being kept secret piqued the interest of mappers, and before too long all the places were mapped (tourism=camp_site, camp_site=basic, backcountry=yes). The authorities complained, but of course they have no legal recourse... still, this led to some discussion in the German mapping community in how far official wishes/demands for secrecy should be respected. We certainly cannot respect *every* local government law or else we'd likely have to purge our maps of all content in China, North Korea, and some Arab countries, delete all military areas in many others... It is an interesting topic for a general discusssion. Though in this concrete case I wonder how to determine whether what looks like a footpath in the Conservation Lands is legal to use or not... should *all* the trails drawn in the area be marked access=no? Should we ask the adminstration for a list? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing
[talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
Hi, the DWG was drawn into an edit war regarding several paths that were mapped in this area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.3740/150.8761 The argument is about in how far the (largely north-south running) paths are "illegal" and whether they need to be removed from the map because they would lead to people trespassing. The argument is two-fold; part applies to the paths that are on private land where, I understand, it is the land owner's prerogative to allow or disallow whatever they want, and another part applies to the paths that run into NPWS managed conservation lands. These paths were originally tagged "foot=yes" and with no further access descriptions; one had an "mtb:scale" added. From reading the Illawara Escarpment Plan of Management (https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/Parks-plans-of-management/illawarra-escarpment-state-conservation-area-plan-management-180505.pdf) I get the impression that mountainbiking on any paths not explicitly open for it is illegal. But what about walking - the plan says a lot about maintained walking tracks but it does *not* explicitly say that walking is limited to these. There's also a published "draft strategy" for mountain biking in the area, however I don't know in how far a draft strategy would influence the current legal situation. Anyway, for the time being I have added an access=no to the paths on private land because the landowner doesn't want people to use them and I guess it is their prerogative; and I've removed the explicit foot=yes on the other paths (becasue I'm not sure) and added a "bicycle=no" to close them for mountainbiking. My changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74355243#map=16/-34.3750/150.8730 I would however be grateful for any input from the Australian community on this matter. I've also been told that NPWS were keenly looking to sue whoever publishes "illegal" trails or uploads them to OSM; in fact such a legal threat was the reason why DWG got involved in the first place. Bye Frederik DWG Ticket Ticket#201909011071 -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
