Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Here's the basics: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1HOH I nicked the starting point off the US Trail Access Project page and adapted it a bit. Hard to show up all the different things that are useful in tagging a track as there's only so many styles available! cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 26/02/2024 12:01 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: It would be interesting to see what Strava shows, so yes, please, Tom, I'd like to see the OT link. Thanks Graeme On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 at 22:22, Tom Brennan wrote: I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project link might be useful for Australia. I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate. Basically the maintained ones with operator tags, others as informal. I know Gaia (for example) renders informal tracks with less priority than formal tracks, though I don't know exactly the combinations of tags they are focussing on. I believe they refresh their tiles every 2-3 weeks so I'll have a look again in a few weeks. If you're into mapping bush tracks, I hacked an Overpass Turbo query which does a pretty good job of visualising some of the useful tags (and where tags are missing). Happy to share. cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 24/02/2024 8:10 am, Mark Pulley wrote: I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix (mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation seems to be to keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, informal=yes). Mark P. On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan wrote: Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration resource between mappers and land managers https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project cheers Tom ___ 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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
It would be interesting to see what Strava shows, so yes, please, Tom, I'd like to see the OT link. Thanks Graeme On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 at 22:22, Tom Brennan wrote: > I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project > link might be useful for Australia. > > I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix > of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with > operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate. Basically the maintained ones > with operator tags, others as informal. > > I know Gaia (for example) renders informal tracks with less priority > than formal tracks, though I don't know exactly the combinations of tags > they are focussing on. I believe they refresh their tiles every 2-3 > weeks so I'll have a look again in a few weeks. > > If you're into mapping bush tracks, I hacked an Overpass Turbo query > which does a pretty good job of visualising some of the useful tags (and > where tags are missing). Happy to share. > > cheers > Tom > > Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning > Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com > > On 24/02/2024 8:10 am, Mark Pulley wrote: > > I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix > (mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation > seems to be to keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, > informal=yes). > > > > Mark P. > > > >> On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan wrote: > >> > >> Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration > resource between mappers and land managers > >> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project > >> > >> cheers > >> Tom > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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 > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project link might be useful for Australia. I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate. Basically the maintained ones with operator tags, others as informal. I know Gaia (for example) renders informal tracks with less priority than formal tracks, though I don't know exactly the combinations of tags they are focussing on. I believe they refresh their tiles every 2-3 weeks so I'll have a look again in a few weeks. If you're into mapping bush tracks, I hacked an Overpass Turbo query which does a pretty good job of visualising some of the useful tags (and where tags are missing). Happy to share. cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 24/02/2024 8:10 am, Mark Pulley wrote: I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix (mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation seems to be to keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, informal=yes). Mark P. On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan wrote: Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration resource between mappers and land managers https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project cheers Tom ___ 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
