Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

In this case the user name of NTCA is a bit of a hint. Took me a couple of
minutes to find this group

 

https://www.facebook.com/nerangtrailcare/ - Nerang Trail Care Alliance

 

In this case I would agree with the deletions

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National
Park)

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497

 

"Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"

 

My opinion on the topic is:

 

If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal access,
that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has been created by
traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's informal=yes.

 

That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on the
list here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012863.html

 

I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in this one
way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably physically exist on
the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be simply deleted. If access
is legally prohibited in some way, then the tags should reflect that, not
the way simply being deleted.

 

What's the general opinion about this?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Paul Norman via Talk-au]

On 2021-10-28 8:05 p.m., osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal 
access, that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has 
been created by traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's 
informal=yes.



Yep, this is how it is supposed to be handled. Removing paths that exist 
on the ground is vandalism, and counter-productive because the paths 
will be remapped
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Phil Wyatt]

HI Folks

 

My opinion on the topic (as a past track/trail manager) is that if you are
not a local actively involved with the trail managers then you need to be
very careful. There can often be rehabilitation at the start and end of
closed/illegal tracks and no active rehabilitation on other parts. Despite
the fact that they 'appear on the ground' they may be part of a larger plan
for removal or rehabilitation.

 

Best to contact the managers of the area and see what their preferences are
for illegal tracks. In general, areas actively used by walkers and bikers
will have some connection with the trail manager and are likely working to
some agreed plan. Its clear this area is an active location for bikers so I
would defer to them.

 

Biking and walking groups often go to a lot of trouble to get the managers
on side and in agreement with development of trails.

 

By 2 bobs worth

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National
Park)

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497

 

"Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"

 

My opinion on the topic is:

 

If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal access,
that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has been created by
traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's informal=yes.

 

That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on the
list here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012863.html

 

I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in this one
way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably physically exist on
the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be simply deleted. If access
is legally prohibited in some way, then the tags should reflect that, not
the way simply being deleted.

 

What's the general opinion about this?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[osm.talk-au]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497

 

"Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"

 

My opinion on the topic is:

 

If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal access,
that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has been created by
traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's informal=yes.

 

That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on the
list here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012863.html

 

I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in this one
way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably physically exist on
the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be simply deleted. If access
is legally prohibited in some way, then the tags should reflect that, not
the way simply being deleted.

 

What's the general opinion about this?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] No attribution on map

[Stéphane Guillou]

On a similar topic, I have contacted twice Australian Unity about the map on 
this page, with no response: https://www.australianunity.com.au/herston-quarter 
(click “download map”)

The local data looks quite different now on OSM but I am familiar with the area 
as I have contributed there a fair bit, and some footpaths make it obvious that 
they used OSM without attribution.

How does one escalate a missing attribution when there is no intermediate 
business like Mapbox?

Cheers

Stéphane Guillou

> On 29 Oct 2021, at 08:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> Reply back from Mapbox:
> 
> "Thanks for reporting! We'll take a look and make any appropriate next 
> steps." 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 14:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Ewen - have just flicked them a message.
>> 
>> Graeme
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 12:22, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>> Hi Graeme,
>>>This is Mapbox Streets-v11 tileset and requires attribution and is part 
>>> derived by our good volunteer work. Mapbox have a fantastic doc about 
>>> attribution at https://docs.mapbox.com/help/getting-started/attribution/ 
>>> which has a link to reporting attribution abuse 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Ewen
>>> 
 On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 12:28, Sigurjon Runarsson via Talk-au 
  wrote:
 Looks like they are using Mapbox tile service which is mostly based on OSM 
 data combined with Mapbox data sources ie buildings.
 
  
 
 Regards,
 
 Sigurjon
 
  
 
 From: Graeme Fitzpatrick [mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Thursday, 28 October 2021 12:15 PM
 To: Bob Cameron ; OSM-Au 
 
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] No attribution on map
 
  
 
 CAUTION: This email is sent from an external source. Do not click any 
 links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the 
 content is safe.
  
 
 
 
 Thanks Bob.
 
  
 
 Taking another look at it though, it appears that it must be sourced from 
 a combination of places?
 
  
 
 Yes, things are named from OSM, but here on the GC, every building is 
 shown, which certainly isn't the case in OSM!
 
  
 
 Graeme
 
  
 
  
 
 On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 10:46, Bob Cameron  wrote:
 
 Agreed Graeme
 
 The business premises and other features I recently added in Quilpie Qld 
 (including omissions) show on their map.
 
 Cheers Bob
 
 On 28/10/21 10:50 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
 
 Spotted this site a couple of days ago: 
 https://easypark.com.au/parking/en_au/, that certainly appears to be using 
 OSM with no attribution.
 
  
 
 Sent them an email, but no response as yet.
 
  
 
 On the site that they say they also operate in NZ & 15 countries around 
 Europe, but not sure if they're also using OSM there?
 
  
 
 Thanks
 
  
 
 Graeme
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
 This email is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential 
 information. If you receive this email in error please delete it and any 
 attachments and notify the sender immediately by reply email. Transport 
 for NSW takes all care to ensure that attachments are free from viruses or 
 other defects. Transport for NSW assume no liability for any loss, damage 
 or other consequences which may arise from opening or using an attachment.
 
 P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless really 
 necessary.
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Warm Regards
>>> 
>>> Ewen Hill
>>> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] No attribution on map

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Reply back from Mapbox:

"Thanks for reporting! We'll take a look and make any appropriate next
steps."

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 14:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Thanks Ewen - have just flicked them a message.
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 12:22, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>> Hi Graeme,
>>This is Mapbox Streets-v11 tileset and requires attribution and is
>> part derived by our good volunteer work. Mapbox have a fantastic doc
>> 
>> about attribution at
>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/getting-started/attribution/ which has a
>> link to reporting attribution abuse
>> 
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ewen
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 12:28, Sigurjon Runarsson via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like they are using Mapbox tile service which is mostly based on
>>> OSM data combined with Mapbox data sources ie buildings.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Sigurjon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick [mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 28 October 2021 12:15 PM
>>> *To:* Bob Cameron ; OSM-Au <
>>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] No attribution on map
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *CAUTION*: This email is sent from an external source. Do not click any
>>> links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the
>>> content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Bob.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Taking another look at it though, it appears that it must be sourced
>>> from a combination of places?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, things are named from OSM, but here on the GC, every building is
>>> shown, which certainly isn't the case in OSM!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 10:46, Bob Cameron 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed Graeme
>>>
>>> The business premises and other features I recently added in Quilpie Qld
>>> (including omissions) show on their map.
>>>
>>> Cheers Bob
>>>
>>> On 28/10/21 10:50 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>>
>>> Spotted this site a couple of days ago:
>>> https://easypark.com.au/parking/en_au/
>>> ,
>>> that certainly appears to be using OSM with no attribution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent them an email, but no response as yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the site that they say they also operate in NZ & 15 countries around
>>> Europe, but not sure if they're also using OSM there?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>>
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>>> 
>>>
>>> This email is intended only for the addressee and may contain
>>> confidential information. If you receive this email in error please delete
>>> it and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by reply email.
>>> Transport for NSW takes all care to ensure that attachments are free from
>>> viruses or other defects. Transport for NSW assume no liability for any
>>> loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening or using an
>>> attachment.
>>>
>>> P *Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless
>>> really necessary.*
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Warm Regards
>>
>> Ewen Hill
>>
>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au