Re: [talk-au] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?
Message sent to Blue Mountains Council asking for them to please clarify what the legal use of these tracks is? I'll update when I hear something back from them. Thanks Graeme On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 18:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Illegally constructed ... who says? > > > Never mind. > > > The land owner/controller would be the one to contact. > > > Ask about access in general terms - everyone, private, permissive.. > > > The method of transportation over the track is a separate issue ... > > There maybe access considerations for them too .. but again not about > the physical properties .. but the permissions. > > > On 10/3/22 18:40, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > > Hi Graeme > > > > "Illegally constructed trail bike tracks", so > > possibly just tagging it as motor_vehicles=private, foot & bikes=yes, > > would > > solve it? > > > > No, I don't think so. > > Its a trail bike track so its probably too narrow for cars, > > motor_vehicles=private seems irrelevant > > foot & bikes=yes, It sounds like the landowner didn't want the track > > constructed and most likely doesn't want any traffic at all. access=no > > is probably the most accurate. > > > > Strava, glowing dull red cuts out the lifecycle prefixes. > > > > I would probably tag it access=no and close it with a comment that > > removing it from the map is not a simple process and that the creator, > > Cormacticii probably should ask on talk-au > > > > Tony > > > > > >> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 17:34, wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317 > >>> Contact the land manager, if the land manager can make a serious job > >>> of closing the track to traffic then it might be OK to use a lifecycle > >>> prefix, there are a few to choose from. > >>> > >> > >> Thanks - now who to ask? > >> > >> The Note's OP says that it's "Deerubbin LALC land", which I'm > >> thinking is > >> Local Aboriginal Land Council?, while we show that it comes under Blue > >> Mountains City Council. Which of the two would have the say? Or is it > >> State > >> Govt? > >> > >> Also thought to have a look on Strava, which shows this looped track as > >> glowing dull red, so a reasonable number of people are certainly > >> using it! > >> > >> Complaint was that it was "Illegally constructed trail bike tracks", so > >> possibly just tagging it as motor_vehicles=private, foot & bikes=yes, > >> would > >> solve it? > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Graeme > >> > >> _ > >> 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 > > ___ > 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] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?
Illegally constructed ... who says? Never mind. The land owner/controller would be the one to contact. Ask about access in general terms - everyone, private, permissive.. The method of transportation over the track is a separate issue ... There maybe access considerations for them too .. but again not about the physical properties .. but the permissions. On 10/3/22 18:40, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Hi Graeme "Illegally constructed trail bike tracks", so possibly just tagging it as motor_vehicles=private, foot & bikes=yes, would solve it? No, I don't think so. Its a trail bike track so its probably too narrow for cars, motor_vehicles=private seems irrelevant foot & bikes=yes, It sounds like the landowner didn't want the track constructed and most likely doesn't want any traffic at all. access=no is probably the most accurate. Strava, glowing dull red cuts out the lifecycle prefixes. I would probably tag it access=no and close it with a comment that removing it from the map is not a simple process and that the creator, Cormacticii probably should ask on talk-au Tony On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 17:34, wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317 Contact the land manager, if the land manager can make a serious job of closing the track to traffic then it might be OK to use a lifecycle prefix, there are a few to choose from. Thanks - now who to ask? The Note's OP says that it's "Deerubbin LALC land", which I'm thinking is Local Aboriginal Land Council?, while we show that it comes under Blue Mountains City Council. Which of the two would have the say? Or is it State Govt? Also thought to have a look on Strava, which shows this looped track as glowing dull red, so a reasonable number of people are certainly using it! Complaint was that it was "Illegally constructed trail bike tracks", so possibly just tagging it as motor_vehicles=private, foot & bikes=yes, would solve it? Thanks Graeme _ 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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?
Hi Graeme "Illegally constructed trail bike tracks", so possibly just tagging it as motor_vehicles=private, foot & bikes=yes, would solve it? No, I don't think so. Its a trail bike track so its probably too narrow for cars, motor_vehicles=private seems irrelevant foot & bikes=yes, It sounds like the landowner didn't want the track constructed and most likely doesn't want any traffic at all. access=no is probably the most accurate. Strava, glowing dull red cuts out the lifecycle prefixes. I would probably tag it access=no and close it with a comment that removing it from the map is not a simple process and that the creator, Cormacticii probably should ask on talk-au Tony On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 17:34, wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317 Contact the land manager, if the land manager can make a serious job of closing the track to traffic then it might be OK to use a lifecycle prefix, there are a few to choose from. Thanks - now who to ask? The Note's OP says that it's "Deerubbin LALC land", which I'm thinking is Local Aboriginal Land Council?, while we show that it comes under Blue Mountains City Council. Which of the two would have the say? Or is it State Govt? Also thought to have a look on Strava, which shows this looped track as glowing dull red, so a reasonable number of people are certainly using it! Complaint was that it was "Illegally constructed trail bike tracks", so possibly just tagging it as motor_vehicles=private, foot & bikes=yes, would solve it? Thanks Graeme _ 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] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?
In regard to second link which refers to a private road on Crown land : Crown land is not the same as public land. There are many areas of government-owned land that are closed to the public. The land may be reserved or dedicated for particular purposes that are best served by exclusion of the public. Or land may be leased so that the leaseholder has exclusive access for the duration of the lease. Thus a private road on Crown land would not be open to the public. In my view, the fact that the Council-maintained road appears to cease at the point where the "private road" commences supports the view that it is probably private. Many roads in western NSW are on Crown land that is leased by farmers. The farm roads are private and not open to the public. On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, at 6:34 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > Graeme > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317 > Contact the land manager, if the land manager can make a serious job > of closing the track to traffic then it might be OK to use a lifecycle > prefix, there are a few to choose from. > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2348884#map=15/-34.6020/150.6799 > I think this one can't work out if its public or private land, often > the private party is bluffing and its public land. > > Tony > > > > > ___ > 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] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?
Graeme https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317 Contact the land manager, if the land manager can make a serious job of closing the track to traffic then it might be OK to use a lifecycle prefix, there are a few to choose from. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2348884#map=15/-34.6020/150.6799 I think this one can't work out if its public or private land, often the private party is bluffing and its public land. Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?
We discussed both of these a few weeks ago, but didn't really come to any conclusions? Noticed both of these inNotes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2348884#map=15/-34.6020/150.6799 So, how do we handle them? I'd also spotted another one where somebody was saying this is all private property, so none of these (many!) bike tracks should be there, but that's now apparently been closed, as I can't find it again? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
