Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
If OsmAnd fundamentally misinterprets/misrepresents access tags, that's not "disappointing", that's a critical bug that needs to be fixed ASAP. https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/11668 Cheers, Thorsten -Original Message- From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 18:01 To: Phil Wyatt ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) On 29/10/21 10:23 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote: > I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no It does not exclude, the private ones are still there .. but rendered differently. Unfortunately you are correct in that access=no is the same as having no access tag. Boo, disappointing. > > -Original Message- > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) > > > Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... and it works. > > ___ 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
On 29/10/21 10:23 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote: I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no It does not exclude, the private ones are still there .. but rendered differently. Unfortunately you are correct in that access=no is the same as having no access tag. Boo, disappointing. -Original Message- From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... and it works. ___ 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)
On 30/10/21 10:19 am, EON4wd wrote: As part of this discussion I would like to know how to handle illegal motor bike tracks through the bush. I have found that these can often be mapped as a track, as these can be seen clearly on a satellite photo. They are definitely on the ground and often used every weekend, although there are many signs saying it is illegal. Note that it is only illegal for motorised vehicles, walking or horses is OK. These ‘tracks’ are not wide enough for a 4wd although an enthusiastic armchair mapper has mapped them as such, and I have been often caught out. (I am very biased against armchair mapping for the bush. As an avid 4wd and bush lover, it is much better that the track is not marked than find a track that is marked but shouldn’t be. Fuel and time both need to be managed when you are a long way from a town.) I don’t like deleting these tracks but they are not ‘management’ , it is illegal to use them, and they are not wide enough for a standard car. Question – how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn’t seem appropriate. highway=path .. is a 'track' but not wide enough for a car/4WD. That is what I'd use. Add access as appropriate. The rest of the discussion will hopefully answer how to map an illegal track. Thanks Ian While 'on the ground' mapping is preferable there is a lot of Australia and not than many mappers .. so needs must. *From:*Dian Ågesson *Sent:* Friday, 29 October 2021 11:41 PM *To:* osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au *Cc:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) I think you’ve struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed. It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn’t be used. I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It’s primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate use. something like: access=no informal=yes rehabilitation:highway=path source:access=parks agency name Dian On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote: OSM is the database. If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise. So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they don't. Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again, possibly with wrong tags once more. OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the information from the database. That includes Carto. I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't like how a particular data consumer uses it. If you are unhappy about how something is being presented: a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you want. This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data consumers use the data. -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34 To: Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org>> Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails. 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 later) can
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
A somewhat related question that I asked a while ago, is what do you do about "home-made" BMX tracks in a patch of bush? cycle track + informal? Thanks Graeme On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 10:16, wrote: > I’ve always mapped a track that’s not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path. > > > > Ian > > > > > > Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100 > > From: "EON4wd" > > To: > > Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in > Nerang > > National Park) > > Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > >>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. > There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate. > ___ > 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
I've always mapped a track that's not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path. Ian Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100 From: "EON4wd" mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> > To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au <mailto:01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate. ___ 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)
As part of this discussion I would like to know how to handle illegal motor bike tracks through the bush. I have found that these can often be mapped as a track, as these can be seen clearly on a satellite photo. They are definitely on the ground and often used every weekend, although there are many signs saying it is illegal. Note that it is only illegal for motorised vehicles, walking or horses is OK. These ‘tracks’ are not wide enough for a 4wd although an enthusiastic armchair mapper has mapped them as such, and I have been often caught out. (I am very biased against armchair mapping for the bush. As an avid 4wd and bush lover, it is much better that the track is not marked than find a track that is marked but shouldn’t be. Fuel and time both need to be managed when you are a long way from a town.) I don’t like deleting these tracks but they are not ‘management’ , it is illegal to use them, and they are not wide enough for a standard car. Question – how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn’t seem appropriate. The rest of the discussion will hopefully answer how to map an illegal track. Thanks Ian From: Dian Ågesson Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 11:41 PM To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) I think you’ve struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed. It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn’t be used. I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It’s primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate use. something like: access=no informal=yes rehabilitation:highway=path source:access=parks agency name Dian On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote: OSM is the database. If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise. So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they don't. Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again, possibly with wrong tags once more. OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the information from the database. That includes Carto. I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't like how a particular data consumer uses it. If you are unhappy about how something is being presented: a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you want. This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data consumers use the data. -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34 To: Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org> > Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails. 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong. I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
Thanks Dian Your tagging suggestion might work, I'll suggest it to Parks Vic, Lysterfield next week. Tony I think you've struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed. It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn't be used. I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It's primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate use. something like: access=no informal=yes rehabilitation:highway=path source:access=parks agency name Dian On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: OSM is the database. If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise. So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they don't. Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again, possibly with wrong tags once more. OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the information from the database. That includes Carto. I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't like how a particular data consumer uses it. If you are unhappy about how something is being presented: a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you want. This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data consumers use the data. -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34 To: Frederik Ramm Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails. 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong. I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications later. Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them. We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667 There are 3 trails, Way: 476219417 which is access=no Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path #951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the legal trails. Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy. I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the consensus position. Tony Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: You could map a track under the "if it exists then m
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
Oct 29, 2021, 12:42 by p...@wyatt-family.com: > In most cases you are allowed to legally travel ANYWHERE, including off > track, within a national park (with minimal exceptions), however we do not > mark on the map every possibility between all known destinations. That would > make the map look like a spiders web. This would also not help search and > rescue efforts. > using highway=path/footway for "walking here is legal, as you can legally travel anywhere" is also clearly invalid and noone is really proposing it ___ 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)
In such case it would be worth to report this as a clear bug. (have not verified that it actually happens) Oct 29, 2021, 13:23 by p...@wyatt-family.com: > I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no > > -Original Message- > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang > National Park) > > > Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... > and it works. > > > > ___ > 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
I think you've struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed. It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn't be used. I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It's primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate use. something like: access=no informal=yes rehabilitation:highway=path source:access=parks agency name Dian On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: OSM is the database. If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise. So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they don't. Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again, possibly with wrong tags once more. OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the information from the database. That includes Carto. I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't like how a particular data consumer uses it. If you are unhappy about how something is being presented: a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you want. This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data consumers use the data. -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34 To: Frederik Ramm Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails. 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong. I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications later. Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them. We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667 There are 3 trails, Way: 476219417 which is access=no Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path #951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the legal trails. Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy. I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the consensus position. Tony Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't have to. We do not map wom
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
Hi, On 29.10.21 12:33, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the > track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". > > Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it > happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, > illegal trails. This has definitely happened in Germany though the legal situation is not always crystal clear - in most cases, a park or forest manager would have the legal right to close something if they can show that there's imminent danger to plant or wildlife, and in practice many will be more assertive about this than the law allows (a.k.a. "there's danger to plant or wildlife because I say so"). So you'll have the local manager claim that "this is an illegal trail" and the local hikers saying "but the law says we can use the forest for recreation and your reasoning is bogus". This has led to situations where the local manager would not dare put up signs that say "path closed" because they know it would be challenged, but they subtly try to achieve the same by deleting the path from OSM. 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no -Original Message- From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... and it works. ___ 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)
On 29/10/21 9:42 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote: Hi Folks, In this case I would again defer to the locals who are working with the local land managers. Some of the tracks in question have been closed for years and its likely in the case of any search and rescue then the same people who removed the track would be called in to assist (at least in Australia). You also will not see them if doing a desktop edit from aerial imagery. Having worked in this field in Australia for over 30 years most of your arguments do not hold any validity in a real world sense (in Australia), it may be different in other parts of the world. In most cases you are allowed to legally travel ANYWHERE, including off track, within a national park (with minimal exceptions), however we do not mark on the map every possibility between all known destinations. That would make the map look like a spiders web. This would also not help search and rescue efforts. Leave it to the locals to decide the best course of action Yes and no. The local land care group and managers may well be very good at what they do, but may not have the best mapping skills. It should be a two way street, advice in both directions. For instance a mapper who marks a trail in a National Park access=no as they are thinking of 4WDs .. not walkers nor management vehicles. Cheers - Phil -Original Message- From: Frederik Ramm Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 7:46 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map every informal trail. This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts of park managers. Having said that, 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation, while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do. 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful - might even save lives. 3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save lives. 4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count. Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly marking these restrictions on maps. 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 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
OSM is the database. If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise. So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they don't. Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again, possibly with wrong tags once more. OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the information from the database. That includes Carto. I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't like how a particular data consumer uses it. If you are unhappy about how something is being presented: a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you want. This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data consumers use the data. -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34 To: Frederik Ramm Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails. 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong. I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications later. Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them. We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667 There are 3 trails, Way: 476219417 which is access=no Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path #951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the legal trails. Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy. I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the consensus position. Tony > Hi, > > On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: >> You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but >> you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We >> don't have to map every informal trail. > > This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts > of park managers. Having said that, > > 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the > legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a > park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track > in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that > situation, while the park manager might want the best for the > environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal > situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do. > > 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue > teams s
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
On 29/10/21 9:33 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails. 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong. I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications later. Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them. We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667 There are 3 trails, Way: 476219417 which is access=no Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... and it works. We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path #951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the legal trails. Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy. ? I have a trail that is mapped in OSM but not on the official maps.. I strike very few people on it. It was mapped in OSM before I came along ... rather hard to see the start point unless you know it is there. It is more visible that the adjacent officially mapped path and I believe more attractive, though a little more strenuous. I don't see a trail marked on a map as attracting lots of traffic. I don't see any 'legality' attached to official maps that would keep me to only using those mapped tracks. A simple sign that says 'closed' will keep me out, but I'd like to know why. All of the local signs that I have seen have some explanation as to 'why'. Is 'off track' walking now banded too, simply because 'it is not on the official map'? A local fire trail has been 'closed' for track work. I have taken an off track route to bypass the track work and get onto a path. I see nothing wrong with doing that - little damage is done .. I even removed some weeds (not strictly legal, but no ranger is going to object)! I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the consensus position. Tony Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map every informal trail. This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts of park managers. Having said that, 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation, while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do. 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful - might even save lives. 3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
On 29/10/21 3:58 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote: 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/ <https://www.facebook.com/nerangtrailcare/> - Nerang Trail Care Alliance In this case I would agree with the deletions A trail local to me was closed off .. but still evident 'on the ground'. IIRC I market it disused:highway=* with access=no, I think that removed it from most maps. OSMand now displays it .. if you look for it, and that fairly well describes its appearance on the ground. I am tempted to go abandoned:highway=* now some years later if I have not already, it is now rather over grown at least at the access points. I'll put it into OHM. Another path has a 'track closed' sign on it .. but only on one end. It is in frequent use by bicycle riders from the 'track closed' end (down hill). I have removed a section on the map near the sign, but it is there for any one to see on the ground. I might have a word to the rangers, when they come to do some work in my street next week, about it. I may know of at least one of the riders using the track... I believe the fine is over $3,000. My opinion: I disagree with deletions until it is gone - when it cannot be seen. Tag it with what is in effect .. access=no (signs?), disused:highway=* is fading due to lack of use/ revegetation. Possibly add the tag description=illegal/*. While NTCA may have 'good intentions' the map is about what is there not what might be wanted. *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 <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 <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 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)
Hi Folks, In this case I would again defer to the locals who are working with the local land managers. Some of the tracks in question have been closed for years and its likely in the case of any search and rescue then the same people who removed the track would be called in to assist (at least in Australia). You also will not see them if doing a desktop edit from aerial imagery. Having worked in this field in Australia for over 30 years most of your arguments do not hold any validity in a real world sense (in Australia), it may be different in other parts of the world. In most cases you are allowed to legally travel ANYWHERE, including off track, within a national park (with minimal exceptions), however we do not mark on the map every possibility between all known destinations. That would make the map look like a spiders web. This would also not help search and rescue efforts. Leave it to the locals to decide the best course of action Cheers - Phil -Original Message- From: Frederik Ramm Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 7:46 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but > you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We > don't have to map every informal trail. This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts of park managers. Having said that, 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation, while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do. 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful - might even save lives. 3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save lives. 4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count. Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly marking these restrictions on maps. 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 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)
Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails. 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong. I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications later. Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them. We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667 There are 3 trails, Way: 476219417 which is access=no Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path #951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the legal trails. Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy. I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the consensus position. Tony Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map every informal trail. This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts of park managers. Having said that, 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation, while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do. 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful - might even save lives. 3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save lives. 4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count. Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly marking these restrictions on maps. 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 _ 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
29 Oct 2021, 09:08 by fors...@ozonline.com.au: > You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't > have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map > every informal trail. > Note that "do not map women's refuges" applies to ones which are kept secret, what is already covered by verifiability requirements. There are also ones advertising their locations which want to be known, so people who would need to get there know about it. ___ 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)
I still fail to see how that's a valid argument for not mapping the geometry. We have lifecycle prefixes ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay ) and access tags ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno#Illegal_objects ) for this. And I would argue that in the majority of cases we probably would map the physical buildings of women's refuges (or their absence from the map might become a beacon), just not label it's purpose. -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 17:08 To: Phil Wyatt Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM Australian Talk List' Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi all This also came up in 2015, https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2015-July/010619.html The consensus, which I was not happy with, was "if it exists then map it". I volunteer with a park Friends Group and see things more from a Parks Service perspective. There are usually good environmental reasons for closing informal tracks. Unfortunately there is a loop, if it exists then map it, if its mapped it gets used and becomes more distinct. It takes an enormous amount of work by volunteers like me to close a track and keep it closed till it can revegetate sufficiently to remove it from the map under the "if it exists then map it" rule. So I support what Phil Wyatt is saying. Act cautiously and responsibly. You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map every informal trail. Tony > 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/01286 > 3.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)
Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you > don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't > have to map every informal trail. This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts of park managers. Having said that, 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation, while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do. 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful - might even save lives. 3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save lives. 4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count. Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly marking these restrictions on maps. 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
Hi all This also came up in 2015, https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2015-July/010619.html The consensus, which I was not happy with, was "if it exists then map it". I volunteer with a park Friends Group and see things more from a Parks Service perspective. There are usually good environmental reasons for closing informal tracks. Unfortunately there is a loop, if it exists then map it, if its mapped it gets used and becomes more distinct. It takes an enormous amount of work by volunteers like me to close a track and keep it closed till it can revegetate sufficiently to remove it from the map under the "if it exists then map it" rule. So I support what Phil Wyatt is saying. Act cautiously and responsibly. You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map every informal trail. Tony 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
Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
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)
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)
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)
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