Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Tom Brennan]

It's been a couple of months, and Gaia has now refreshed its tiles based 
on the updates I made for Kanangra.


The informal tracks are now rendered with significantly less priority 
than the formal tracks. I should have taken a screenshot of before, but 
I didn't. The formal tracks look to be the same style as previous, but 
the informal tracks are now faint.


https://www.gaiagps.com/map/?loc=14.3/150.1142/-33.9881

I did miss a few small tracks - I was focussed at the large scale.

I don't know how other downstream applications render the same data - 
I'm not on Strava for example.


This could be useful for working with NPWS.

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 25/02/2024 11:09 pm, 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

[Frederik Ramm]

Ben,

On 23/04/2024 05:22, Ben Ritter wrote:
Our solution involves extra work to accommodate the atypical workflow of 
NPWS deleting paths as a means of communicating their updated access 
rights.


You're very generous towards NPWS with your wording here; some might 
call that "atypical workflow" vandalism ;)


I'm all for reaching a solution that works for both parties but it is 
worth noting that NPWS agents deleting valid data are in violation of 
OSM's terms.


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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Hi Sebastian
Thanks for your input but I am not sure what you mean. Can you give a  
bit more detail please?

Tony

Please don?t use Strava as your reference as to whether access is   
permitted on a specific way as a lot of people do the wrong thing.






On 23 Apr 2024, at 4:25?PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

?Quoting Ben Ritter :

...

*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.


Hi Ben
Strava seems to be not respecting private.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413772229
Edited 5 months ago by DM9

It is private but shows the same colour as public use tracks. I   
expect the private tag is correct because its not national park   
between Lanes and Ryans Rd and there are no open gates. I expect   
its private land belonging to Lanes.


Tony



___
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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Please don’t use Strava as your reference as to whether access is permitted on 
a specific way as a lot of people do the wrong thing. 




> On 23 Apr 2024, at 4:25 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Quoting Ben Ritter :
> 
> ...
>> *Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
>> encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
>> collecting any and all examples.
> 
> Hi Ben
> Strava seems to be not respecting private.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413772229
> Edited 5 months ago by DM9
> 
> It is private but shows the same colour as public use tracks. I expect the 
> private tag is correct because its not national park between Lanes and Ryans 
> Rd and there are no open gates. I expect its private land belonging to Lanes.
> 
> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Quoting Ben Ritter :


*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.


Not sure about this one but
Way: Road 30 (569541638)
access=no
Edited 10 months ago by VicWM

In strava shows the same as road35 which is tagged without access= tag

The bit that I am not sure about is whether road 35 is wrongly tagged

Tony



___
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

[forster]

Quoting Ben Ritter :

...

*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.


Hi Ben
Strava seems to be not respecting private.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413772229
Edited 5 months ago by DM9

It is private but shows the same colour as public use tracks. I expect  
the private tag is correct because its not national park between Lanes  
and Ryans Rd and there are no open gates. I expect its private land  
belonging to Lanes.


Tony



___
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

[Ben Ritter]

> The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It
is unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
purity.

Adam, with respect, I cannot agree with this evaluation of this discussion.
We have spent real time discussing how to represent the NPWS values in an
ongoing way within OSM. We then resolved a solution for incorporating this
kind of unsound edit: Verify that the tracks still physically exist,
restore and tag with `access=no` and `informal=yes`. Our solution involves
extra work to accommodate the atypical workflow of NPWS deleting paths as a
means of communicating their updated access rights. And I think it is fair
to say that we--as a community--are happy to do this because of the values
communicated here.

For me, and I suspect for the other OSMers here, the value is not "some
abstract academic notion", it is my practical experience of using OSM data.
When I see a bush track with dilapidated signage, or car tracks that might
be someone's driveway, I pull out OSMAnd to see if I can learn about it. If
the track is absent that means "not mapped yet" and if it has pink dots on
it, it's private or forbidden.

> What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help
you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service  edits", then
respect that ...

This approach that you propose is not one of communicating towards a shared
understanding, it is for one party to obey the decree of the other. "stop
reverting parks service edits" is a solution concocted without
consideration of the nuances of OSM that have been raised here, which was a
good start to this discussion, but is not a conclusion that is sensitive to
the OSM values raised here. As you have reiterated it, let me reiterate
that it is not even possible for us to sustainable enact such a solution
that is counter to the standard operation of OSM: the handful of mappers
who have stuck through this conversation will know what we decide, but the
other ~100 active australian mappers

on any given day will continue to apply the standard practice, causing the
problem to pop up again and again.

Anyway, on to the constructive part of the discussion:

---

*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.

This will help to make the real-world damage that "may occur" less abstract
and more concrete, but more importantly, I am interested in following up
with every such publication to get them to stop. To your question Adam,
those that are publishing incorrect (by long-standing consensus)
interpretations of the database are the ones responsible for any damage
being caused.

Regards,
Ben

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 12:57, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> I can agree with the last sentence, but not much else.
>
> I think most of the people in this thread genuinely want to work with
> the various parks services to get OSM solutions that work for both parks
> and the OSM community.
>
> We don't currently have any good communication channels.
>
> If we can get the right lines of communication - which is difficult when
> you have OSM and NPWS being both distributed and bureaucratic in their
> own ways - I'm confident that we will be able to get outcomes that
> everyone is happy with.
>
> Tom
> 
> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
>
> On 29/02/2024 10:42 pm, Adam Steer wrote:
> > Thanks Tony.
> >
> > The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It
> is
> > unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
> > purity.
> >
> > The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable
> for
> > anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come to OSM and
> justify
> > themselves" is pretty weird and backwards.
> >
> > What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help
> > you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service  edits", then
> > respect that ...
> >
> > A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made
> respectfully
> > and responsibly.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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

[Tom Brennan]

I can agree with the last sentence, but not much else.

I think most of the people in this thread genuinely want to work with 
the various parks services to get OSM solutions that work for both parks 
and the OSM community.


We don't currently have any good communication channels.

If we can get the right lines of communication - which is difficult when 
you have OSM and NPWS being both distributed and bureaucratic in their 
own ways - I'm confident that we will be able to get outcomes that 
everyone is happy with.


Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 29/02/2024 10:42 pm, Adam Steer wrote:

Thanks Tony.

The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is
unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
purity.

The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable for
anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come to OSM and justify
themselves" is pretty weird and backwards.

What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help
you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service  edits", then
respect that ...

A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully
and responsibly.


___
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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 29/02/2024 12:56, Andrew Welch via Talk-au wrote:
Part of the reason why we want them to map the way 
we map is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it 
is informal (so downstream users shouldn't treat it as a path) and 
usually considered private property (again, so downstream users 
shouldn't use it as a path). Tagging it that way also stops someone 
mapping from aerial imagery, previous GPS tracks, and other sources, 
from going and adding it back in.


Further reasons for mapping informal paths:

1. Orientation. Imagine you have memorized the map, and you know that 
after the bend you are to take the first path to the right. Now, if the 
"first path to the right" that you encounter is an informal one that has 
been deleted from the map, you might accidentally walk that path rather 
than the one you intended to take.


2. Search and rescue. If someone is lost somewhere, then informal paths 
would certainly be a good starting point to go looking for them - 
provided you know where these informal paths are.


3. Emergency. In an emergency situation it can be important to know 
about a path even if you're not allowed to use it.


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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Welch via Talk-au]

I have to disagree with the first part of that. OSM is designed as
somewhere where you can map pretty much anything that exists, as long as it
can be verified. Part of the reason why we want them to map the way we map
is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it is
informal (so downstream users shouldn't treat it as a path) and usually
considered private property (again, so downstream users shouldn't use it as
a path). Tagging it that way also stops someone mapping from aerial
imagery, previous GPS tracks, and other sources, from going and adding it
back in. It's part of the reason why access tagging and lifecycle prefixes
exist, to allow those features to be in the OSM database, but still reflect
their status so downstream users can correctly represent those features.

I'd absolutely love for us to work with more government and non-government
organisations to not only make it easier for us to build a more complete
map, but to help them reflect information regarding their respective areas
as accurately as possible, but that involves both sides working together,
not just making changes and telling us how to use our database.
The reverts only happen because they're wrong edits by our standards. We
want them to edit and contribute in a way that allows them to correctly
represent the status of their parks, and ensures that as a collaborative
project, we don't go and continue to add in bad data unintentionally.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 22:13, Adam Steer  wrote:

> Thanks Tony.
>
> The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is
> unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
> purity.
>
> The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable for
> anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come to OSM and justify
> themselves" is pretty weird and backwards.
>
> What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help
> you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service  edits", then
> respect that ...
>
> A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully
> and responsibly.
>
>
>
___
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

[Adam Steer]

Thanks Tony.

The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is
unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
purity.

The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable for
anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come to OSM and justify
themselves" is pretty weird and backwards.

What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help
you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service  edits", then
respect that ...

A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully
and responsibly.
___
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

[Andrew Welch via Talk-au]

I think we have tried to reach out directly in the past but I could be
wrong. Communication is 100% the issue, and not for lack of trying.

If anyone does have contacts within NPWS or is willing to try and reach out
to get a discussion going, it definitely would be worth a shot.
Even if it's just to organise some way for one or two of us to sit down
with them or jump on a call with them to explain that we want their
contributions towards OSM, but there's a right and wrong way to do it, and
even just help them to understand how downstream sources use our data is
out of our control, that'll hopefully be enough to at least keep both us
and them happy.
If we're lucky it might even open some doors for us to work with them
further and improve OSM further.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 21:41,  wrote:

> Thanks Adam, well put.
>
> There are two groups, both trying to be of service to the wider
> community. The mappers trying to build better maps and land managers
> trying to protect and manage public land well.
>
> If a land manager sees mappers not respecting their decisions about
> managing public land, they will see it as vandalism. If mappers see
> Parks deleting map data, they will see that as vandalism too.
>
> The problem is that there is very little communication between the two
> groups. Partly because Parks people are overworked and time poor, at
> least in Victoria which I know best. Also because consensus management
> and public forums are an unfamiliar form of management for Parks. They
> are looking for the person in charge and confidential discussions.
>
> The paths include high stakes stuff, some trivial, but also tracks
> that may lure people over cliffs and environmental damage that may
> last forever. We are doing better at communicating than the land
> managers are at the moment. That is good. I am glad to be part of this
> group which is so patient and so responsible. I want us to keep being
> responsible and keep listening.
>
> And I again invite the land managers to engage with us in discussion,
> here or another place of their choice. It is a serious issue that will
> only be resolved through discussion.
>
> Tony
>
> > Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land
> managers
> > vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land
> effectively?
> >
> > This is a publicly archived forum, which land managers may read.
> >
> > It's been raised a few times, and I have no problem raising this again:
> >
> > - OSM have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of
> > tags.
> >
> > - the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point.
> >
> > - continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world
> > monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of
> > people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those
> > costs?
> >
> > - who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join
> this
> > discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen,
> > only to talk...
> >
> > This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing
> > this post, and couldn't any more.
> >
> > There are more important values than a database. Land managers have
> better
> > things to do that have edit wars.
> >
> > And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream.
> Please
> > respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully
> and
> > wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land.
> >
> > With regards,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
> > talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> >> As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there?s probably
> a
> >> point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just
> revert
> >> their deletions) until they actually work with us.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew Welch
> >> m...@andrewwelch.net
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13?pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
> graemefi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
> >>> Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said
> >>> to him :-(
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Graeme
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
> >>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >>>
>  The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those
> ways
>  as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get
>   across to
>  NPWS.
> 
>  They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and
> haven't
>  replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Andrew Welch
>  m...@andrewwelch.net
> 
> 
>  On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley 
> wrote:
> 
> > There?s probably going to be other 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Thanks Adam, well put.

There are two groups, both trying to be of service to the wider  
community. The mappers trying to build better maps and land managers  
trying to protect and manage public land well.


If a land manager sees mappers not respecting their decisions about  
managing public land, they will see it as vandalism. If mappers see  
Parks deleting map data, they will see that as vandalism too.


The problem is that there is very little communication between the two  
groups. Partly because Parks people are overworked and time poor, at  
least in Victoria which I know best. Also because consensus management  
and public forums are an unfamiliar form of management for Parks. They  
are looking for the person in charge and confidential discussions.


The paths include high stakes stuff, some trivial, but also tracks  
that may lure people over cliffs and environmental damage that may  
last forever. We are doing better at communicating than the land  
managers are at the moment. That is good. I am glad to be part of this  
group which is so patient and so responsible. I want us to keep being  
responsible and keep listening.


And I again invite the land managers to engage with us in discussion,  
here or another place of their choice. It is a serious issue that will  
only be resolved through discussion.


Tony


Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land managers
vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land effectively?

This is a publicly archived forum, which land managers may read.

It's been raised a few times, and I have no problem raising this again:

- OSM have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of
tags.

- the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point.

- continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world
monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of
people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those
costs?

- who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join this
discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen,
only to talk...

This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing
this post, and couldn't any more.

There are more important values than a database. Land managers have better
things to do that have edit wars.

And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream. Please
respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully and
wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land.

With regards,

Adam







On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there?s probably a
point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
their deletions) until they actually work with us.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13?pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:


I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said   
to him :-(


Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways
as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get  
 across to

NPWS.

They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
replied to a changeset comment asking about those.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:


There?s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths.
I?ve just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This   
was deleted

by NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least
most of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the
first part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass
currently closed, I?m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in
2017, with some indistinct sections, so it?s possible that the 2020 fires
and 2022 floods have finished it off. I?ve asked a clarifying question on
the changeset.

Mark P.

On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53?pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch   
of paths in

Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
- the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.

--
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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Welch via Talk-au]

Frederik basically covers what I was trying to say, the edits go against
how we map in OSM, and repeated attempts to work with them just haven't
worked yet. OSM does not belong to NPWS, they can't just go deleting things
like it's their own GIS system.
If they have better things to do, then they should stop continuing the edit
wars and work with us. We've asked them to edit using our agreed-upon ways,
but that only happened for the first time this week after their deletions
were immediately reverted. This isn't something that's been going on for a
week or two, it's been several months.

If they want to help OSM reflect the true status of these tracks, they need
to respect how OSM works. We want to work with them, and have been trying
to. It's really up to them to come to the table at this point.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 21:12, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 29/02/2024 11:20, Adam Steer wrote:
> > Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land
> > managers vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land
> > effectively?
>
> You're right that in the strict sense of the word you'd only use it for
> someone who damages OSM without gaining anything themselves.
>
> But deleting tracks that exist on the ground clearly *is* damaging OSM,
> so if you want to avoid the "v-word" then at the very least you should
> say: These people are willfully damaging OSM in pursuing their own goals.
>
> And if you repeatedly damage OSM, then we'll kick you out. No matter if
> you're Joe Random, or the Emperor of China.
>
> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 29/02/2024 11:20, Adam Steer wrote:
Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land 
managers vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land 
effectively?


You're right that in the strict sense of the word you'd only use it for 
someone who damages OSM without gaining anything themselves.


But deleting tracks that exist on the ground clearly *is* damaging OSM, 
so if you want to avoid the "v-word" then at the very least you should 
say: These people are willfully damaging OSM in pursuing their own goals.


And if you repeatedly damage OSM, then we'll kick you out. No matter if 
you're Joe Random, or the Emperor of China.


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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Adam Steer]

Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land managers
vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land effectively?

This is a publicly archived forum, which land managers may read.

It's been raised a few times, and I have no problem raising this again:

- OSM have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of
tags.

- the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point.

- continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world
monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of
people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those
costs?

- who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join this
discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen,
only to talk...

This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing
this post, and couldn't any more.

There are more important values than a database. Land managers have better
things to do that have edit wars.

And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream. Please
respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully and
wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land.

With regards,

Adam







On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
> point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
> their deletions) until they actually work with us.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
>> Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways
>>> as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
>>> NPWS.
>>>
>>> They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
>>> replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew Welch
>>> m...@andrewwelch.net
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>>
 There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths.
 I’ve just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted
 by NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least
 most of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the
 first part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass
 currently closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in
 2017, with some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires
 and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on
 the changeset.

 Mark P.

 On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

 I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
 the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
 Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
 - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.

 --
 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
>
___
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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Yep, any "normal" mapper would have been reverted & had a holiday if they
persisted, long before this!

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 20:01, Andrew Welch  wrote:

> As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
> point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
> their deletions) until they actually work with us.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
>> Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways
>>> as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
>>> NPWS.
>>>
>>> They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
>>> replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew Welch
>>> m...@andrewwelch.net
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>>
 There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths.
 I’ve just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted
 by NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least
 most of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the
 first part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass
 currently closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in
 2017, with some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires
 and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on
 the changeset.

 Mark P.

 On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

 I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
 the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
 Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
 - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.

 --
 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Welch via Talk-au]

As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
their deletions) until they actually work with us.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
> Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways
>> as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
>> NPWS.
>>
>> They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
>> replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew Welch
>> m...@andrewwelch.net
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>
>>> There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve
>>> just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by
>>> NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most
>>> of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first
>>> part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently
>>> closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with
>>> some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022
>>> floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the
>>> changeset.
>>>
>>> Mark P.
>>>
>>> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>>
>>> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
>>> the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
>>> Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
>>> - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls Lookout,
after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways as
> access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
> NPWS.
>
> They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
> replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve
>> just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by
>> NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most
>> of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first
>> part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently
>> closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with
>> some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022
>> floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the
>> changeset.
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>
>> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
>> the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
>> Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
>> - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
>>
>> --
>> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Welch via Talk-au]

The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways as
access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
NPWS.

They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
replied to a changeset comment asking about those.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve
> just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by
> NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most of
> it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first part
> from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently closed,
> I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with some
> indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 floods
> have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the changeset.
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to the
> discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
> Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 -
> the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
>
> --
> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve just 
had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by NPWS 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most of it was, a 
small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first part from Rodriguez 
Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently closed, I’m not able to 
check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with some indistinct sections, so 
it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve 
asked a clarifying question on the changeset.

Mark P.

> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to the 
> discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in Tweed 
> Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 - the 
> deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
> 
> -- 
> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks Frederik!

Had spotted that earlier & was going to ask if anybody could confirm it,
but got caught up with other stuff.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 19:56, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
> the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths
> in Tweed Shire, NSW here
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 - the deleter claims
> to have ties to NPS.
>
> --
> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Frederik Ramm]

I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to 
the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths 
in Tweed Shire, NSW here 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 - the deleter claims 
to have ties to NPS.


--
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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Tom Brennan]

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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

[Tom Brennan]

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Hi Mark

I would not offer Parks the option of a life cycle prefix until Parks  
recognizes that this comes with an obligation to maintain the ex-path  
in a disused, deconstructed or demolished state. I don't think that  
Parks has to be perfect in this, the the path might be illegally  
reopened from time to time  but the life cycle prefix should be  
representative of the path's average state.


Tony

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Tom Brennan]

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

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 25/09/2023 10:20 am, Tom Brennan wrote:

Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they 
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a 
map which might encourage it.


But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about 
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never 
real tracks in the first place.


As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be 
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.


Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on 
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it 
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.


Reading through the comments on the changesets, on the NPWS side, it 
seems like the local ranger(s) contact the Maps and Data team, who then 
go and delete the tracks. So the people who are making the decisions on 
the ground (the rangers) are not the same ones implementing the changes 
in OSM. This makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation because 
you're not talking to the actual decision-maker.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 22/09/2023 4:37 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,


Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks 
be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do 
everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track 
managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and 
if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the 
locations will help.



Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, 
many years and there will likely be remains of the 
closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on 
some imagery, for an extended period of time.



I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect 
the desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may 
see those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use 
back to previous levels and they may do this without the backing of 
the agency.



In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop 
going there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation 
being undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=type 
along with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation 
at the ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left 
to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede 
water flow and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years 
for full rehabilitation to take place.



So my view is…


*    If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*    If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately 
to discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the 
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you 
are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the area is a 
favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
*    Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged 
tracks do not appear on public maps



Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)


Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and 
Wildlife for many years so I am slightly biased.



From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey 
; Mark Pulley 

Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS


I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the 
rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that 
perspective I understand why not having them in a map is in their 
interests.



On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:




On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:


I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS 
has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers 
National Park).



These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion 
were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.


These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a 
different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)



I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, 
tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in 
which case access=no can be used). Is 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Now talking to NPWS.

One question for everybody.

Mark P was there in Nov 2023 & track was still there, with no "Track
closed, keep out" or similar signage.

Has anybody been there since then & can confirm or otherwise that this is
still the case?

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 16:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Message resent regarding proposed Liaison Officer & also confirming track
> in question.
>
> Awaiting response.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 17:16, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> I have also contacted Stephen privately to see if he wants to chat
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
>> *To:* Andrew Welch 
>> *Cc:* Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List
>> 
>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
>>
>>
>>
>> NPWS have now contacted DWG again.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10
>> paragraphs, then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the
>> lot!!! :-(
>>
>>
>>
>> That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to
>> remember what I said!) tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if
>> consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is
>> with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as
>> vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure
>> that mappers unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the
>> trails.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrew Welch
>>
>> m...@andrewwelch.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
>>
>>
>>
>> I had replied privately:
>>
>>
>>
>> Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
>> talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the
>> understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but
>> that did not eventuate.
>>
>> For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the
>> mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my
>> changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back
>> to the mailing list for further discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.
>>
>>
>>
>> He has replied to me:
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed
>> about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground
>> from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks
>> and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request,
>> have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce
>> them.
>>
>> It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land,
>> and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these
>> paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS
>> wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify
>> the situation.
>>
>> It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to
>> remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary
>> challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding
>> these paths back onto OpenStreetMap.
>>
>> Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will
>> contribute to the effective management of the area.
>>
>> Thank you for your understanding.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the
>> changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private
>> messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks
>> to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pull

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Message resent regarding proposed Liaison Officer & also confirming track
in question.

Awaiting response.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 17:16, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> I have also contacted Stephen privately to see if he wants to chat
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
> *To:* Andrew Welch 
> *Cc:* Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
>
>
>
> NPWS have now contacted DWG again.
>
>
>
> I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10
> paragraphs, then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the
> lot!!! :-(
>
>
>
> That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to
> remember what I said!) tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if
> consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is
> with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as
> vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure
> that mappers unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the
> trails.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Welch
>
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
> I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
>
>
>
> I had replied privately:
>
>
>
> Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
> talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the
> understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but
> that did not eventuate.
>
> For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the
> mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my
> changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back
> to the mailing list for further discussion.
>
>
>
> I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.
>
>
>
> He has replied to me:
>
>
>
> I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed
> about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground
> from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks
> and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request,
> have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce
> them.
>
> It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land,
> and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these
> paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS
> wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify
> the situation.
>
> It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to
> remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary
> challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding
> these paths back onto OpenStreetMap.
>
> Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute
> to the effective management of the area.
>
> Thank you for your understanding.
>
>
>
> I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the
> changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private
> messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks
> to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.)
>
>
>
> Mark P.
>
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>
>
> I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had
> deleted these last time):
>
>
>
> Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
> has officially closed the track.
>
> “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by
> myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
>
> Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate
> its removal once again by NPWS.
>
>
>
> So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
>
> I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been
> officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per
> our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
>
> It’s a shame that NPWS 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Phil Wyatt via Talk-au]

I have also contacted Stephen privately to see if he wants to chat

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
To: Andrew Welch 
Cc: Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

 

NPWS have now contacted DWG again.

 

I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10 paragraphs, 
then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the lot!!! :-(

 

That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to 
remember what I said!) tomorrow.

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Andrew Welch via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if 
consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is with 
them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as vandalism by 
mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure that mappers 
unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the trails. 

 

Thanks,

Andrew Welch

m...@andrewwelch.net <mailto:m...@andrewwelch.net> 

 

 

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:

 

I had replied privately:

 

Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the 
talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the understanding 
that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but that did not 
eventuate.

For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the mailing 
list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my changeset 
regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back to the 
mailing list for further discussion.

 

I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.

 

He has replied to me:

 

I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed about 
the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground from 
OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks and 
Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request, have been 
removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce them.

It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land, and as 
part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these paths to be 
displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS wishes but also 
requires additional work hours from their end to rectify the situation.

It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to remove 
these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary challenges. I urge 
you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding these paths back onto 
OpenStreetMap.

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute to 
the effective management of the area.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the changeset, 
or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private messages, as I don’t 
want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks to tonyf1 who has made the 
same suggestion on the changeset.)

 

Mark P.





On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

 

I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had deleted 
these last time):

 

Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has 
officially closed the track.

“Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by myself 
30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”

Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate its 
removal once again by NPWS.

 

So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.

I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been 
officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per our 
request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."

It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.

I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no (rather 
than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!

 

Mark P.





On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

 

Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352


Mark P.

 

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

NPWS have now contacted DWG again.

I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10
paragraphs, then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the
lot!!! :-(

That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to
remember what I said!) tomorrow.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if
> consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is
> with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as
> vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure
> that mappers unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the
> trails.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Welch
> m...@andrewwelch.net
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
>>
>> I had replied privately:
>>
>> Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
>> talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the
>> understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but
>> that did not eventuate.
>> For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the
>> mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my
>> changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back
>> to the mailing list for further discussion.
>>
>> I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.
>>
>> He has replied to me:
>>
>> I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed
>> about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground
>> from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks
>> and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request,
>> have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce
>> them.
>> It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land,
>> and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these
>> paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS
>> wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify
>> the situation.
>> It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to
>> remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary
>> challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding
>> these paths back onto OpenStreetMap.
>> Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will
>> contribute to the effective management of the area.
>> Thank you for your understanding.
>>
>> I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the
>> changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private
>> messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks
>> to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.)
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>
>> I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had
>> deleted these last time):
>>
>> Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
>> has officially closed the track.
>> “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by
>> myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
>> Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate
>> its removal once again by NPWS.
>>
>> So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
>> I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been
>> officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per
>> our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
>> It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.
>> I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no
>> (rather than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>
>> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Andrew Welch via Talk-au]

I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if
consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is
with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as
vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure
that mappers unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the
trails.

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net


On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
>
> I had replied privately:
>
> Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
> talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the
> understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but
> that did not eventuate.
> For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the
> mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my
> changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back
> to the mailing list for further discussion.
>
> I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.
>
> He has replied to me:
>
> I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed
> about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground
> from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks
> and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request,
> have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce
> them.
> It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land,
> and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these
> paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS
> wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify
> the situation.
> It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to
> remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary
> challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding
> these paths back onto OpenStreetMap.
> Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute
> to the effective management of the area.
> Thank you for your understanding.
>
> I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the
> changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private
> messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks
> to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.)
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
> I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had
> deleted these last time):
>
> Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
> has officially closed the track.
> “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by
> myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
> Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate
> its removal once again by NPWS.
>
> So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
> I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been
> officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per
> our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
> It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.
> I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no
> (rather than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
>
> Mark P.
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:

I had replied privately:

Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the 
talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the understanding 
that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but that did not 
eventuate.
For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the mailing 
list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my changeset 
regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back to the 
mailing list for further discussion.

I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.

He has replied to me:

I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed about 
the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground from 
OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks and 
Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request, have been 
removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce them.
It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land, and as 
part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these paths to be 
displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS wishes but also 
requires additional work hours from their end to rectify the situation.
It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to remove 
these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary challenges. I urge 
you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding these paths back onto 
OpenStreetMap.
Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute to 
the effective management of the area.
Thank you for your understanding.

I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the changeset, 
or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private messages, as I don’t 
want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks to tonyf1 who has made the 
same suggestion on the changeset.)

Mark P.

> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> 
> I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had deleted 
> these last time):
> 
> Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has 
> officially closed the track.
> “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by 
> myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
> Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate its 
> removal once again by NPWS.
> 
> So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
> I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been 
> officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per our 
> request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
> It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.
> I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no (rather 
> than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!
> 
> Mark P.
> 
>> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>> 
>> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
>> 
>> Mark P.

___
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

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had deleted 
these last time):

Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has 
officially closed the track.
“Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by myself 
30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate its 
removal once again by NPWS.

So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been 
officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per our 
request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.
I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no (rather 
than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!

Mark P.

> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> 
> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
> 
> Mark P.

___
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

[Mark Pulley]

Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352

Mark P.

> On 12 Feb 2024, at 7:05 am, forster  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Its OK by me. The park ranger who appears to be most connected to this has 
> been contacted and invited into our discussion. What more can we do? Its 
> unfortunatee that a slow motion edit war will be the likely outcome.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?
>> Mark P.
>>> On 9 Feb 2024, at 6:23 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>>> No, nothing that I have heard.
>>> Tony
>>> Just following up on this - has there been any further input from
>>> National Parks regarding these paths?
>>> Mark P.
>>> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified
>>> himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I
>>> would share off list.
>>> He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street
>>> Map. But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails
>>> that Mark is reverting.
>>> He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on
>>> the ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or
>>> illegal.
>>> I encouraged him to join the discussion here.
>>> Tony
>>> I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.
>>> (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern  non-visible
>>> trail deleted)
>>> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>>> Mark P.
>> ___
>> 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

[forster]

Hi

Its OK by me. The park ranger who appears to be most connected to this 
has been contacted and invited into our discussion. What more can we do? 
Its unfortunatee that a slow motion edit war will be the likely outcome.


Tony





In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?

Mark P.


On 9 Feb 2024, at 6:23 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

No, nothing that I have heard.
Tony

Just following up on this - has there been any further input from
National Parks regarding these paths?

Mark P.

On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi

I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified
himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I
would share off list.

He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street
Map. But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails
that Mark is reverting.

He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on
the ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or
illegal.

I encouraged him to join the discussion here.

Tony

I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.
(Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern  non-visible
trail deleted)

Any objections / changes before I go ahead?

Mark P.


___
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

[Mark Pulley]

In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?

Mark P.

> On 9 Feb 2024, at 6:23 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> No, nothing that I have heard.
> Tony
> 
> 
>> Just following up on this - has there been any further input from  National 
>> Parks regarding these paths?
>> 
>> Mark P.
>> 
>>> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified  
>>> himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I  would share 
>>> off list.
>>> 
>>> He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street  Map. But 
>>> that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails  that Mark is 
>>> reverting.
>>> 
>>> He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on  the 
>>> ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or  illegal.
>>> 
>>> I encouraged him to join the discussion here.
>>> 
>>> Tony
>>> 
 I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.   
 (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern  non-visible  trail 
 deleted)
 
 Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
 
 Mark P.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

[forster]

No, nothing that I have heard.
Tony


Just following up on this - has there been any further input from   
National Parks regarding these paths?


Mark P.


On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi

I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified  
 himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I   
would share off list.


He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street   
Map. But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails   
that Mark is reverting.


He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on   
the ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or   
illegal.


I encouraged him to join the discussion here.

Tony

I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.  
  (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern   
non-visible  trail deleted)


Any objections / changes before I go ahead?

Mark P.









___
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

[Mark Pulley]

Just following up on this - has there been any further input from National 
Parks regarding these paths?

Mark P.

> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified himself 
> as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would share off list.
> 
> He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street Map. But that 
> does not necessarily mean they are the same trails that Mark is reverting.
> 
> He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on the ground, 
> not  just that they were unauthorised or social or illegal.
> 
> I encouraged him to join the discussion here.
> 
> Tony
> 
>> I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.  (Keeping 
>> the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible  trail deleted)
>> 
>> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>> 
>> Mark P.

___
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

[Mark Pulley]

I’ll wait a bit for him to join the discussion before I upload.

Mark P.

> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified himself 
> as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would share off list.
> 
> He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street Map. But that 
> does not necessarily mean they are the same trails that Mark is reverting.
> 
> He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on the ground, 
> not  just that they were unauthorised or social or illegal.
> 
> I encouraged him to join the discussion here.
> 
> Tony
> 
>> I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.  (Keeping 
>> the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible  trail deleted)
>> 
>> The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
>> highway=path
>> foot=yes
>> informal=yes
>> trail_visibilty=intermediate
>> surface=dirt
>> 
>> With additional tags:
>> hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
>> access=discouraged
>> note=access discouraged by NPWS
>> 
>> with a link in the changeset notes to  
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F +  
>> mention of this discussion.
>> 
>> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>> 
>> Mark P.
>> 
>>> On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22?am, Graeme Fitzpatrick   
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together  with a 
>>> hazard= tag?
>>> 
>>> Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to  set-up 
>>> an OSM liasion contact.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Graeme
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley >> > wrote:
 I?m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked  tracks only. 
 The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn?t  mention any 
 restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn?t  mention any 
 restrictions.
 
 Mark P.
 
> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32?pm, Andrew Harvey   > wrote:
> 
> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only"  combined 
> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to  imply you can't 
> continue further and therefore access=no.
> 
> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me  that 
> just means it's the end of foot=designated, and further  tracks would be 
> foot=yes and informal=yes, without any access=no.
 ___
 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

[forster]

Hi

I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified  
himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would  
share off list.


He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street Map.  
But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails that Mark  
is reverting.


He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on the  
ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or illegal.


I encouraged him to join the discussion here.

Tony

I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.   
(Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible   
trail deleted)


The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
highway=path
foot=yes
informal=yes
trail_visibilty=intermediate
surface=dirt

With additional tags:
hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
access=discouraged
note=access discouraged by NPWS

with a link in the changeset notes to   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F +   
mention of this discussion.


Any objections / changes before I go ahead?

Mark P.

On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22?am, Graeme Fitzpatrick   
 wrote:


So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together   
with a hazard= tag?


Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to   
set-up an OSM liasion contact.


Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley > wrote:
I?m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked   
tracks only. The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn?t   
mention any restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn?t   
mention any restrictions.


Mark P.

On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32?pm, Andrew Harvey   
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:


If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only"   
combined with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to  
 imply you can't continue further and therefore access=no.


Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me   
that just means it's the end of foot=designated, and further   
tracks would be foot=yes and informal=yes, without any access=no.

___
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

[stevea]



> On Jan 2, 2024, at 3:36 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, fellas!
> 
> There's my new thing I've learnt today! :-)
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:25, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 22:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?
> >
> > Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to 
> > "everybody" (?) using it downstream.
> >
> >
> This seems to be referring to an OSM note _tag_ rather than "OSM notes" 
> (those red things).  Although not many things claim to process OSM note 
> tags, some do - data in there is just a "public" to downstream OSM data 
> consumers as in a description tag,
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/note#projects
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/description#projects
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy


___
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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks, fellas!

There's my new thing I've learnt today! :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:25, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 02/01/2024 22:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?
> >
> > Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to
> > "everybody" (?) using it downstream.
> >
> >
> This seems to be referring to an OSM note _tag_ rather than "OSM notes"
> (those red things).  Although not many things claim to process OSM note
> tags, some do - data in there is just a "public" to downstream OSM data
> consumers as in a description tag,
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/note#projects
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/description#projects
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/01/2024 22:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?

Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to 
"everybody" (?) using it downstream.



This seems to be referring to an OSM note _tag_ rather than "OSM notes" 
(those red things).  Although not many things claim to process OSM note 
tags, some do - data in there is just a "public" to downstream OSM data 
consumers as in a description tag,


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/note#projects

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/description#projects

Best Regards,

Andy



___
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

[stevea]

Because Graeme politely included a question mark, I'll do my best here to offer 
my interpretation, which might actually approach and "answer" to his question:  
whether a note=* or a description=*, each of these data are "in" OSM, as OSM is 
a database.  "Downstream" use cases, like a rendering, an overlay, a particular 
display of OSM data in a particular app on your phone or tablet...these are 
indeed OSM data, but "filtered" through a particular methodology for DISPLAYING 
those data.  So, while the datum of note=* is different than the datum of 
description=*, whether one, the other or both are displayed in any particular 
downstream use case is 100% dependent on whether that "interpretation" 
(renderer, map editor...) chooses to display this, that or another particular 
datum.

In short, BOTH "notes are visible to mappers on OSM" AND "descriptions are 
visible to OSM."  This is dependent, of course, on the editor ("mapper use 
case," if you will) being used, but "data are data."  Choosing whether this or 
that is selected should be driven by which tag to use is more correct, as  can 
be found in our wiki's pages for the note=* tag, or the description=* tag, or 
community usage, such as taginfo numbers or evidence shown in an Overpass Turbo 
query of actual in-the-map data.

I hope this helps!

On Jan 2, 2024, at 2:03 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?
> Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to "everybody" 
> (?) using it downstream.
> 
> Thanks
> Graeme


___
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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?

Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to "everybody"
(?) using it downstream.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 20:25, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I’ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.
> (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible trail
> deleted)
>
> The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
> highway=path
> foot=yes
> informal=yes
> trail_visibilty=intermediate
> surface=dirt
>
> With additional tags:
> hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
> access=discouraged
> note=access discouraged by NPWS
>
> with a link in the changeset notes to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F +
> mention of this discussion.
>
> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
> So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together with a
> hazard= tag?
>
> Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to set-up
> an OSM liasion contact.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only.
>> The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any
>> restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any
>> restrictions.
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
>> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
>> continue further and therefore access=no.
>>
>> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that
>> just means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be
>> foot=yes and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload. (Keeping the 
trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible trail deleted)

The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
highway=path
foot=yes
informal=yes
trail_visibilty=intermediate
surface=dirt

With additional tags:
hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
access=discouraged
note=access discouraged by NPWS

with a link in the changeset notes to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F + 
mention of this discussion.

Any objections / changes before I go ahead?

Mark P.

> On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together with a 
> hazard= tag?
> 
> Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to set-up an 
> OSM liasion contact.
>  
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley  > wrote:
>> I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only. 
>> The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any 
>> restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any 
>> restrictions.
>> 
>> Mark P.
>> 
>>> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined 
>>> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't 
>>> continue further and therefore access=no.
>>> 
>>> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just 
>>> means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes 
>>> and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>> ___
>> 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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together with a
hazard= tag?

Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to set-up
an OSM liasion contact.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only.
> The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any
> restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any
> restrictions.
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
> continue further and therefore access=no.
>
> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just
> means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes
> and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>
> ___
> 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

[Mark Pulley]

I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only. The 
map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any restriction, and 
the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any restrictions.

Mark P.

> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined with 
> the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't continue 
> further and therefore access=no.
> 
> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just 
> means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes 
> and informal=yes, without any access=no.
___
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

[Andrew Harvey]

If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
continue further and therefore access=no.

Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just
means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes
and informal=yes, without any access=no.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 22:55, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.
>
> The asphalt path ends at a lookout
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826
>
> The ‘controversial’ path is still present south of here - I followed it
> some of the way (about 350m), but didn’t follow it all the way to the end.
>
> There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows
> the sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
> https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6
>
> On the left side of the sign, there’s a warning icon (exclamation mark),
> then “No safety rail”, another warning icon (man falling off edge of
> crumbling cliff), then “Unstable edges”
>
> On the right side of the sign is the text “End of track, no safety rail
> beyond this point”
>
> The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it’s
> not technically a “do not enter” sign.
>
> Does that help with what to do with this particular example?
>
> Mark P.
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>>
>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>>
>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> 3. No reversion
>>
>
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
>
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

As you say, they are trying to discourage walkers but nothing to indicate it
is not permitted to enter.

Path should be in OSM

Ian

> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:52:06 +1100
> From: Mark Pulley 
> To: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> 
> On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.
> 
> The asphalt path ends at a lookout
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826
> 
> The ?controversial? path is still present south of here - I followed it
some of
> the way (about 350m), but didn?t follow it all the way to the end.
> 
> There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows
the
> sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
> https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6
> 
> On the left side of the sign, there?s a warning icon (exclamation mark),
then
> ?No safety rail?, another warning icon (man falling off edge of crumbling
cliff),
> then ?Unstable edges?
> 
> On the right side of the sign is the text ?End of track, no safety rail
beyond this
> point?
> 
> The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it?s
not
> technically a ?do not enter? sign.
> 
> Does that help with what to do with this particular example?
> 
> Mark P.
> 
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
> >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just
this
> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
> >>
> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) 2.
> >> Partial revert, with a change in tags 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
> >>
> >> For this particular example, the results would be:
> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> >> tags 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively
> >> abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* 3. No reversion
> >
> > I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
lifecycle prefix
> on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> >
> > If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the
> closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason
> for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or
> something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
> >
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> au/attachments/20231214/f7dcd5fa/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 198, Issue 6
> ***


___
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

[Mark Pulley]

On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.

The asphalt path ends at a lookout https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826

The ‘controversial’ path is still present south of here - I followed it some of 
the way (about 350m), but didn’t follow it all the way to the end.

There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows the 
sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6

On the left side of the sign, there’s a warning icon (exclamation mark), then 
“No safety rail”, another warning icon (man falling off edge of crumbling 
cliff), then “Unstable edges”

On the right side of the sign is the text “End of track, no safety rail beyond 
this point”

The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it’s not 
technically a “do not enter” sign.

Does that help with what to do with this particular example?

Mark P.

> 
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  > wrote:
>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this 
>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>> 
>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>> 
>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively 
>> abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> 3. No reversion
> 
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle 
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> 
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should capture 
> the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason 
> for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or 
> something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
> 

___
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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I didn't so much mean the heat trace, as the actual line on the map itself
which is no longer shown for those "disused" paths.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 17:03,  wrote:

> Hi Graeme
> I have not seen anything indicating Strava removes ways from heat
> maps. Way 1033069444 was removed by lifecycle prefix on 1 September.
> Its heat trace is still there. I expect it to fade as it is used less
> and finally disappear.
> Tony
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1033069444/history
>
> https://www.strava.com/heatmap#16.18/145.31833/-37.93630/hot/run
>
>
>
> Quoting Graeme Fitzpatrick :
>
> > Made this, slightly tongue in cheek, comment t'other week.
> >
> > Turns out that they possibly do!
> >
> > Just clearing a Note & noticed that the traces of these paths,
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=3942697#map=18/-32.95437/151.74519
> > which are tagged as disused, don't appear in Strava!
> > https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.18/151.74460/-32.95468/hot/run
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access
> data &
> >> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Graeme
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
>  should exist in OSM.
> 
>  This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I
>  think it should be represented with:
> 
> - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
> - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
> - access=no because the relevant authority says so
> 
>  I believe it's more nuanced than that.
> >>>
> >>> If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and
> >>> restore it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work
> done
> >>> like placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if
> >>> vegetation is regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the
> >>> "stages of decay" lifecycle prefixes.
> >>>
> >>> If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
> >>> where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just
> this
>  particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
> 
>  1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>  2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>  3. Leave the deletion as it is.
> 
>  For this particular example, the results would be:
>  1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> tags
>  2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>  alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>  3. No reversion
> 
> >>>
> >>> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
> >>> lifecycle prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
> >>> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> >>>
> >>> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
> >>> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
> >>> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
> >>> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like,
> >>> access:reason=rehabilitation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi all,
>    A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
>  protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.
> 
>   On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits
> for
>  an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust
> has the
>  potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may
> alter
>  food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage
> values,". In
>  Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in
> the
>  Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human
> activity.
>  In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
>  protection.
> 
>  I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however
>  it might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
>  protect fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps
> these.
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising
> the
>  ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
> 
> >>>
> >>> Exactly this. If we map the closure including 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Hi Graeme
I have not seen anything indicating Strava removes ways from heat  
maps. Way 1033069444 was removed by lifecycle prefix on 1 September.  
Its heat trace is still there. I expect it to fade as it is used less  
and finally disappear.

Tony

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1033069444/history

https://www.strava.com/heatmap#16.18/145.31833/-37.93630/hot/run



Quoting Graeme Fitzpatrick :


Made this, slightly tongue in cheek, comment t'other week.

Turns out that they possibly do!

Just clearing a Note & noticed that the traces of these paths,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=3942697#map=18/-32.95437/151.74519
which are tagged as disused, don't appear in Strava!
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.18/151.74460/-32.95468/hot/run

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:


In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:




On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter 
wrote:


I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
should exist in OSM.

This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I
think it should be represented with:

   - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
   - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
   - access=no because the relevant authority says so

I believe it's more nuanced than that.


If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and
restore it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done
like placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if
vegetation is regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the
"stages of decay" lifecycle prefixes.

If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.



On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:


A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):

1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.

For this particular example, the results would be:
1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
3. No reversion



I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
lifecycle prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
or rehabilitated:highway=*.

If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like,   
access:reason=rehabilitation.




On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:


Hi all,
  A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.

 On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
protection.

I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however
it might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
protect fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.





On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter 
wrote:


I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.



Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.




In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.

Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.



Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
I'm not saying we need to map all the 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Made this, slightly tongue in cheek, comment t'other week.

Turns out that they possibly do!

Just clearing a Note & noticed that the traces of these paths,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=3942697#map=18/-32.95437/151.74519
which are tagged as disused, don't appear in Strava!
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.18/151.74460/-32.95468/hot/run

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
>>> should exist in OSM.
>>>
>>> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I
>>> think it should be represented with:
>>>
>>>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
>>>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
>>>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
>>>
>>> I believe it's more nuanced than that.
>>
>> If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and
>> restore it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done
>> like placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if
>> vegetation is regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the
>> "stages of decay" lifecycle prefixes.
>>
>> If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
>> where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>
>>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
>>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>>>
>>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>>>
>>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>>> 3. No reversion
>>>
>>
>> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
>> lifecycle prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
>> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
>>
>> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
>> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
>> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
>> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
>>> protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.
>>>
>>>  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
>>> an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
>>> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
>>> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
>>> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
>>> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
>>> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
>>> protection.
>>>
>>> I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however
>>> it might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
>>> protect fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
>>> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
>> we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
>> asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
>> Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
>>> the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
>>>
>>> Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
>>> which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
>>> likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.
>>>
>>
>> Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
>> buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
>> providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
>> I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths
>> which may still get activity it may help to 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 11:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
>

And they or anyone else can't do that if we just delete the way completely
as some are advocating here.
___
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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter  wrote:
>
>> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
>> should exist in OSM.
>>
>> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
>> it should be represented with:
>>
>>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
>>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
>>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
>>
>> I believe it's more nuanced than that.
>
> If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore
> it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like
> placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is
> regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay"
> lifecycle prefixes.
>
> If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
> where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>>
>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>>
>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> 3. No reversion
>>
>
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
>
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
>> protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.
>>
>>  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
>> an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
>> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
>> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
>> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
>> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
>> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
>> protection.
>>
>> I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
>> might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
>> fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
>>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter  wrote:
>
>> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
>> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
>>
>
> Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
> we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
> asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
> Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.
>
>
>>
>> In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
>> the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
>>
>> Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
>> which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
>> likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.
>>
>
> Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
> buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
> providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
> I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths
> which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a
> conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM.
>
>
>>
>> With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure,
>> the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a
>> new one.
>>
>> Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
>> being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
>> solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
>> long term for the 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> should exist in OSM.
>
> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
> it should be represented with:
>
>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
>
> I believe it's more nuanced than that.

If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore
it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like
placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is
regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay"
lifecycle prefixes.

If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.



On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>
> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>
> For this particular example, the results would be:
> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> 3. No reversion
>

I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
or rehabilitated:highway=*.

If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.



On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:

> Hi all,
>   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting
> the environment over ground truth mapping.
>
>  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
> an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
> protection.
>
> I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
> might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
> fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
>



On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
>

Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.


>
> In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
> the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
>
> Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
> which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
> likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.
>

Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths
which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a
conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM.


>
> With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure,
> the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new
> one.
>
> Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
> being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
> solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
> long term for the reasons above.
>
___
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

[Tom Brennan]

I agree that environmental preservation doesn't generally need to be in 
conflict with ground truth.


If an area of a park - or tracks - is closed by land managers, tracks in 
that area should be tagged accordingly.


By simply deleting tracks from OSM, mappers are more likely to add the 
tracks again when they come across them. If the tracks are already in 
OSM, but tagged so that they are not visible (and possibly with a note 
explaining why), then it's a lot clearer why they should not be made 
visible.


The vast majority of the tracks in say Blue Mountains National Park are 
informal (formed by bushwalkers over time). That doesn't mean that NPWS 
is going to close them. Heck, they even advertise many of them! NPWS 
themselves acknowledges that they don't have the resources to maintain 
even a small percentage of the tracks.


There are still some grey areas. I've occasionally avoided mapping 
certain tracks because I know it will likely lead to significant impact 
- hanging swamps, aboriginal sites etc.


But in general I'd map what's on the ground, as long as that's not 
conflicting with a land manager policy.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 8/10/2023 10:17 pm, Ben Ritter wrote:

I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.

In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with the
addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.

Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map which
didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would likely
assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.

With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, the
existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new
one.

Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
long term for the reasons above.

Cheers,
Ben


___
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

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/10/2023 00:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after 
I sent my own saying more or less the same thing?


I cocked it up anyway - sending it from a phone as html only, so I 
suspect many people (including the list archive) won't see it! For what 
it's worth it said:



> The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths 
and leave them removed


I'm not actually convinced that is true.

If something is visible from aerial imagery (or even something like 
Strava*) then someone might "just add it" without knowing the history.  
With a DWG hat on I have many times explained to people why a path that 
"should not exist" has been re-added by someone unfamiliar with its status.


If there is a chance that someone will add something that shouldn't be 
there for whatever reason then it makes sense to ensure that something 
representing the current status is mapped. This might be some sort of 
lifecycle tag such as "disused:highway=path" or if the thing really does 
still exist but is private, some sort of access tag.


Best Regards,

Andy

* I certainly wouldn't map "just from Strava" myself, but unfortunately 
some people do.


___
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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after I
sent my own saying more or less the same thing?

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer  wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails
>> from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke
>> accounts of repeat trail remappers.
>>
>
> Not disagreeing with you, Adam, but if the track has been completely
> removed from OSM, then there's nothing there to say "Don't map it"! If
> somebody is only looking at imagery, & can see a track going off that way,
> that's not on the map, then they're likely to add it & it will immediately
> reappear as a public track, whereas if it stays mapped as an abandoned
> track with access=no, that won't happen.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer  wrote:

>
> It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails
> from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke
> accounts of repeat trail remappers.
>

Not disagreeing with you, Adam, but if the track has been completely
removed from OSM, then there's nothing there to say "Don't map it"! If
somebody is only looking at imagery, & can see a track going off that way,
that's not on the map, then they're likely to add it & it will immediately
reappear as a public track, whereas if it stays mapped as an abandoned
track with access=no, that won't happen.

Thanks

Graeme
___
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

[Andy Townsend]

 > The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and leave them removedI'm not actually convinced that is true.If something is visible from aerial imagery (or even something like Strava*) then someone might "just add it" without knowing the history.  With a DWG hat on I have many times explained to people why a path that "should not exist" has been re-added by someone unfamiliar with its status.If there is a chance that someone will add something that shouldn't be there for whatever reason then it makes sense to ensure that something representing the current status is mapped. This might be some sort of lifecycle tag such as "disused:highway=path" or if the thing really does still exist but is private, some sort of access tag.Best Regards,Andy* I certainly wouldn't map "just from Strava" myself, but unfortunately some people do.   ___
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

[Adam Steer]

Hi all

What is the OSM community issue with the concept of 'do not map this it
will cause harm'?

OSMF and the OSM community cannot stop downstream users from using data
however they like. It's open data, people may not even be aware that they
need to apply specific tagging for visibility or not.

The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and
leave them removed. It's quite straightforward. I've worked on one project
where having informal tracks visible on a map would have trashed years of
advocacy work. I've also seen that if a trail appears on a map, it gets
used. Others in this thread have given direct experience (ground truth if
you like, or as close as anyone will get to whatever people think
ground truth is) of when mapping trails leads to harm.

As an open data community, mapping responsibly comes before "map all the
things". This means considering that downstream users may not use data in
ways we would like or expect once it is there.

It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails from
OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke
accounts of repeat trail remappers. Because see the second sentence in this
email. Also remember it costs actual dollars to keep re-remediating trails,
policing usage, monitoring which mapping aps are showing trails that should
not be there. So an abstract insistence on a concept which does not even
exist (ground truth) is sucking up real world time and money. Which, I'd
wager, could be far better spend elsewhere.

With regards,

Adam
--
Dr Adam Steer
https://iamadamsteer.com
___
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

[Ben Ritter]

I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.

In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with the
addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.

Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map which
didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would likely
assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.

With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, the
existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new
one.

Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
long term for the reasons above.

Cheers,
Ben

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 4:11 pm Ian Sergeant,  wrote:

> I understand what you would like the mission statement to be.
>
> But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth.
>
> If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion.
>
> I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a
> genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith.
>
> We have tags to handle this scenario.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM  wrote:
>
>> Yes Ewen, I agree
>>
>> The OSM mission statement is at
>> https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement
>>
>> I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be
>> evil"*
>> Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"
>>
>> Tony Forster
>>
>>
>> * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing† in 2015
>> and finally dropped it in 2018
>>
>> https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
>> protecting
>> > the environment over ground truth mapping.
>> >
>> >  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits
>> for an
>> > outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
>> > potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
>> > food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,".
>> In
>> > Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
>> > Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human
>> activity.
>> > In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
>> > protection.
>> >
>> > I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however
>> it
>> > might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
>> protect
>> > fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
>> >
>> > Ewen
>> >
>> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>> >
>> >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just
>> this
>> >> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>> >>
>> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>> >> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>> >> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>> >>
>> >> For this particular example, the results would be:
>> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
>> tags
>> >> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>> >> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> >> 3. No reversion
>> >>
>> >> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
>> >> wasn?t sure about the third!)
>> >>
>> >> Here?s my proposal:
>> >> Partial revert of ways
>> >> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
>> >> survey in early 2022)
>> >> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
>> >> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of
>> access=no
>> >> (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
>> >> describe the reason for the access tag
>> >> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
>> >> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
>> >> area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map,
>> but
>> >> hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
>> >> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
>> >> have previously been marked access=no e.g.
>> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
>> >> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
>> >> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
>> >> mailing list discussion).
>> >>
>> >> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back
>> to
>> >> this location any time soon to do one.
>> >>
>> >> Mark P.
>> >>
>> >> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (I'm a 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Ian Sergeant]

I understand what you would like the mission statement to be.

But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth.

If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion.

I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a
genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith.

We have tags to handle this scenario.

Ian


On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM  wrote:

> Yes Ewen, I agree
>
> The OSM mission statement is at
> https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement
>
> I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be
> evil"*
> Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"
>
> Tony Forster
>
>
> * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing† in 2015
> and finally dropped it in 2018
>
> https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those
> protecting
> > the environment over ground truth mapping.
> >
> >  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
> an
> > outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
> > potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
> > food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
> > Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
> > Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
> > In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
> > protection.
> >
> > I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
> > might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to
> protect
> > fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
> >
> > Ewen
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> >
> >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
> >> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
> >>
> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> >> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> >> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
> >>
> >> For this particular example, the results would be:
> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> tags
> >> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> >> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> >> 3. No reversion
> >>
> >> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
> >> wasn?t sure about the third!)
> >>
> >> Here?s my proposal:
> >> Partial revert of ways
> >> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
> >> survey in early 2022)
> >> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
> >> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of
> access=no
> >> (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
> >> describe the reason for the access tag
> >> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
> >> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
> >> area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map,
> but
> >> hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
> >> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
> >> have previously been marked access=no e.g.
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
> >> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
> >> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
> >> mailing list discussion).
> >>
> >> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to
> >> this location any time soon to do one.
> >>
> >> Mark P.
> >>
> >> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
> >> agree with Tom's take and have commented below:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tricky one.
> >>>
> >>> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
> >>> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
> >>> map which might encourage it.
> >>>
> >>> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about
> >>> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
> >>> real tracks in the first place.
> >>>
> >>> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
> >>> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the
> >>> ground.
> >>>
> >>> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement
> on
> >>> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that
> it
> >>> shouldn't appear on downstream maps.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> >> should exist in OSM.
> >>
> >> This situation is not a novel one that 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Warin]

While 'removing it now' might seam like a good idea.. some map renders 
do not up date for 1 year.


So some will still show what you are attempting to remove. And then if a 
solution is found those removals will simply have to be reverted where 
possible.


Rather than removal how about retagging them with some thing that 
retains the past history .. was:highway=path for instance. I note the 
railway people are most resistant to the removal of railways that no 
longer exist ...


On 8/10/23 18:29, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Yes Ewen, I agree

The OSM mission statement is at 
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement


I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t 
be evil"*

Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"

Tony Forster


* Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing” in 2015 
and finally dropped it in 2018 
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393





Hi all,
  A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those 
protecting

the environment over ground truth mapping.

 On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits 
for an

outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage 
values,". In

Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human 
activity.

In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
protection.

I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances 
however it
might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to 
protect

fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.

Ewen

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:

A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just 
this

particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):

1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.

For this particular example, the results would be:
1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access 
tags

2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
3. No reversion

So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
wasn?t sure about the third!)

Here?s my proposal:
Partial revert of ways
Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
survey in early 2022)
Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of 
access=no

(as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
describe the reason for the access tag
(Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the 
map, but

hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
have previously been marked access=no e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
mailing list discussion).

It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go 
back to

this location any time soon to do one.

Mark P.

On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter  
wrote:


(I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
agree with Tom's take and have commented below:

On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan,  
wrote:



Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks 
on a

map which might encourage it.

But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go 
about

it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
real tracks in the first place.

As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the
ground.

Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure 
(announcement on
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so 
that it

shouldn't appear on downstream maps.



I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
should exist in OSM.

This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I 
think

it should be represented with:

   - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
   - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
   - access=no because the relevant authority says so

It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Yes Ewen, I agree

The OSM mission statement is at  
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement


I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be evil"*
Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"

Tony Forster


* Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing” in 2015  
and finally dropped it in 2018  
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393





Hi all,
  A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting
the environment over ground truth mapping.

 On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an
outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
protection.

I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.

Ewen

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:


A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):

1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.

For this particular example, the results would be:
1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
3. No reversion

So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
wasn?t sure about the third!)

Here?s my proposal:
Partial revert of ways
Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
survey in early 2022)
Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of access=no
(as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
describe the reason for the access tag
(Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, but
hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
have previously been marked access=no e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
mailing list discussion).

It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to
this location any time soon to do one.

Mark P.

On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter  wrote:

(I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
agree with Tom's take and have commented below:

On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan,  wrote:


Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
map which might encourage it.

But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
real tracks in the first place.

As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the
ground.

Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.



I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
should exist in OSM.

This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
it should be represented with:

   - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
   - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
   - access=no because the relevant authority says so

It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any
signage at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly
maintained or vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not
practical use. I would encourage the managers to ensure signage is
maintained, because many people won't be using OSM as their source of truth!

I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification
for the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it
can be referenced as a source.

If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access
restriction, then we should 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Ewen Hill]

Hi all,
  A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting
the environment over ground truth mapping.

 On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an
outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
protection.

I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.

Ewen

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>
> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>
> For this particular example, the results would be:
> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> 3. No reversion
>
> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
> wasn’t sure about the third!)
>
> Here’s my proposal:
> Partial revert of ways
> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
> survey in early 2022)
> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of access=no
> (as NWPS don’t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
> describe the reason for the access tag
> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don’t have a new survey of this
> area. The NPWS ranger doesn’t appear to want this showing on the map, but
> hasn’t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
> have previously been marked access=no e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
> mailing list discussion).
>
> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn’t planning to go back to
> this location any time soon to do one.
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter  wrote:
>
> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
> agree with Tom's take and have commented below:
>
> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan,  wrote:
>
>> Tricky one.
>>
>> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
>> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
>> map which might encourage it.
>>
>> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about
>> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
>> real tracks in the first place.
>>
>> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
>> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the
>> ground.
>>
>> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on
>> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it
>> shouldn't appear on downstream maps.
>>
>
> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> should exist in OSM.
>
> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
> it should be represented with:
>
>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
>
> It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any
> signage at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly
> maintained or vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not
> practical use. I would encourage the managers to ensure signage is
> maintained, because many people won't be using OSM as their source of truth!
>
> I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification
> for the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it
> can be referenced as a source.
>
> If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access
> restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the access
> tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for many
> sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc.
>
> Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* tag
> that use of 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this 
particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):

1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.

For this particular example, the results would be:
1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively abandoned:highway=* 
or disused:highway=*
3. No reversion

So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I wasn’t 
sure about the third!)

Here’s my proposal:
Partial revert of ways
Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my 
survey in early 2022)
Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of 
access=no (as NWPS don’t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to 
describe the reason for the access tag
(Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will 
prevent it appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don’t have a new survey of 
this area. The NPWS ranger doesn’t appear to want this showing on the map, but 
hasn’t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it officially 
closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations have previously 
been marked access=no e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the 
mailing list discussion).

It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn’t planning to go back to this 
location any time soon to do one.

Mark P.

> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter  wrote:
> 
> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I agree 
> with Tom's take and have commented below:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan,  > wrote:
>> Tricky one.
>> 
>> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they 
>> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a 
>> map which might encourage it.
>> 
>> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about 
>> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never 
>> real tracks in the first place.
>> 
>> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be 
>> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.
>> 
>> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on 
>> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it 
>> shouldn't appear on downstream maps.
> 
> 
> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something should 
> exist in OSM.
> 
> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think it 
> should be represented with:
> highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
> informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
> access=no because the relevant authority says so
> It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any signage 
> at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly maintained or 
> vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not practical use. I would 
> encourage the managers to ensure signage is maintained, because many people 
> won't be using OSM as their source of truth!
> 
> I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification for 
> the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it can be 
> referenced as a source.
> 
> If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access 
> restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the access 
> tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for many 
> sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc.
> 
> Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* tag 
> that use of the track is discouraged/banned for rehabilitation. Justification 
> for reinstating the OSM features could also be documented in the notes=* tag 
> to minimise the risk of this discussion coming up again.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben
> ___
> 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

[Ben Ritter]

(I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I agree
with Tom's take and have commented below:

On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan,  wrote:

> Tricky one.
>
> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
> map which might encourage it.
>
> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about
> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
> real tracks in the first place.
>
> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.
>
> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on
> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it
> shouldn't appear on downstream maps.
>

I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
should exist in OSM.

This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
it should be represented with:

   - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
   - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
   - access=no because the relevant authority says so

It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any signage
at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly maintained or
vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not practical use. I would
encourage the managers to ensure signage is maintained, because many people
won't be using OSM as their source of truth!

I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification for
the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it can
be referenced as a source.

If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access
restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the access
tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for many
sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc.

Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* tag
that use of the track is discouraged/banned for rehabilitation.
Justification for reinstating the OSM features could also be documented in
the notes=* tag to minimise the risk of this discussion coming up again.

Cheers,
Ben

>
___
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

[Tom Brennan]

Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they 
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a 
map which might encourage it.


But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about 
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never 
real tracks in the first place.


As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be 
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.


Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on 
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it 
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.


Reading through the comments on the changesets, on the NPWS side, it 
seems like the local ranger(s) contact the Maps and Data team, who then 
go and delete the tracks. So the people who are making the decisions on 
the ground (the rangers) are not the same ones implementing the changes 
in OSM. This makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation because 
you're not talking to the actual decision-maker.


cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 22/09/2023 4:37 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

  


Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be 
removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do everything 
possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers also have a 
responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area is high use then 
signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.

  


Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many years 
and there will likely be remains of the closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks 
showing in some environments, on some imagery, for an extended period of time.

  


I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the 
desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see those 
tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to previous 
levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.

  


In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going there. 
I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being undertaken then a 
better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=type along with access=no. Many such 
tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only and the 
rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some 
occasional bars to impede water flow and allow buildup of debris. Again, it 
will take many years for full rehabilitation to take place.

  


So my view is…

  


*   If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*   If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to 
discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the managers to 
actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you are concerned on the 
tagging then its also likely that the area is a favourite place for you. Work 
with the managers!
*   Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged tracks 
do not appear on public maps

  


Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)

  


Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife for 
many years so I am slightly biased.

  


From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ; Mark Pulley 

Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

  


I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers or gov 
wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I understand why 
not having them in a map is in their interests.

  


On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

  

  


On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has deleted 
some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National Park).

  


These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were 
reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.

These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a different 
NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)

  


I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as 
informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case access=no 
can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a policy to the 
wiki for similar situations?

  


We have 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycl

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:37, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers
> also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area
> is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.
>
>
>
> Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many
> years and there will likely be remains of the
> closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on some
> imagery, for an extended period of time.
>
>
>
> I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the
> desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see
> those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to
> previous levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going
> there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being
> undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=*type* along
> with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the
> ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left to very
> slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow
> and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full
> rehabilitation to take place.
>

I'm fine with a new lifecycle prefix like rehabilitated where there are
visible efforts to actually rehabilitate (e.g. new plantings, levelling,
filling the track with dead trees, etc.), if there is just a track closed
sign that's not quite the same as physically it may still be perfectly
usable just legally you can't use it.

I wish park managers would see mapping it in OSM as a rehabilitated track
or closed track would help keep people off the track. Data consumers could
then build maps or provide hints or notices to their map users to indicate
such so people don't use the track naively assuming it's open for use. If
it's not mapped in OSM, unless people see the track closed signage, they
might just stumble upon it and think its overgrown and actually start
clearing and rebuilding it!
___
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

[forster]

Thanks Phil
You put it well.

In my experience we demolish the illegal track making it impassable  
and get an undertaking from Parks Vic that they will endeavour to  
maintain it that way. We add a lifetime prefix and as a matter of   
courtesy contact the mapper . So far it works.


Tony Forster
Friends of Lysterfield Park


Hi Folks,



Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the   
tracks be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we   
should do everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks.  
 Track managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise   
people and if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation   
at the locations will help.




Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many,   
many years and there will likely be remains of the   
closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments,   
on some imagery, for an extended period of time.




I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately   
reflect the desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some  
 users may see those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the  
track and  promote use back to previous levels and they may do this  
without the  backing of the agency.




In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop   
going there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation   
being undertaken then a better tag would be   
rehabilitated:highway=type along with access=no. Many such tracks   
will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only  
and  the rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate,  
 maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow and allow   
buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full   
rehabilitation to take place.




So my view is…



*   If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*	If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately  
to  discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the   
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if   
you are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the area   
is a favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
*	Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged   
tracks do not appear on public maps




Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)



Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and   
Wildlife for many years so I am slightly biased.




From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey   
; Mark Pulley 

Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS



I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the   
rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that   
perspective I understand why not having them in a map is in their   
interests.




On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey   
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:






On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:


I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS   
has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers   
National Park).




These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion   
were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.


These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a   
different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised   
below.)




I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,   
tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in  
 which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do  
 we need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?




We have   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>




Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for   
use, but with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have  
 signage etc.




Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no)   
- These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM   
data for users looking for closed paths.











___
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

[Warin]

On 22/9/23 16:37, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Hi Folks,

Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks 
be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do 
everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track 
managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and 
if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the 
locations will help.


Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, 
many years and there will likely be remains of the 
closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on 
some imagery, for an extended period of time.


I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect 
the desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may 
see those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use 
back to previous levels and they may do this without the backing of 
the agency.


In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop 
going there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation 
being undertaken then a better tag would be 
rehabilitated:highway=/type/ along with access=no. Many such tracks 
will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only and the 
rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with 
some occasional bars to impede water flow and allow buildup of debris. 
Again, it will take many years for full rehabilitation to take place.


So my view is…

  * If you *cant* see the track on the imagery – delete it.
  * If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to
discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if
you are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the
area is a favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
  * Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged
tracks do not appear on public maps

Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)




A path near me has a sign saying track closed... been there for quite a 
while. Some bicycle riders have taken to that track, modifying it for 
their use since that sign was put up. The sign is now being vandalized 
and will soon be gone. The sign is at the top, there is no sign at the 
bottom, the bicycle riders come down hill at speed, I like to walk up as 
it suits a circuit I do. I have removed a centre section of the track. 
In other places there are signs stating bicycle riders are to stick to 
management trails (ie for motor vehicles, not walking paths) and the 
fines are ~$3,000 ... yet to see any effort to really close that track 
nor any policing.. If they had taken action to actual close the track 
with barricades I'd have more respect and would map it as 'disused'.. 
but this is simple stupidity and I'll be leaving the path in OSM.
___
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

[Ian Steer]

I think that if there has been *active* measures to rehabilitate the track
(eg "brushing over", track closed signs *and* barricades, then fair-enough,
delete/make invisible the track.

But if the land owner is not making much effort, we should map what's on the
ground.

Ian



> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 23:25:02 +1000
> From: Andrew Harvey 
> To: Mark Pulley 
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID:
>jeo...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> 
> > I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS
> > has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers
> > National Park).
> >
> > These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion
> > were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> > These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> > different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised
> > below.)
> >
> > I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,
> > tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in
> > which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we
> > need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?
> >
> 
> We have
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_
> and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling
> _and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
> 
> Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
with
> the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.
> 
> Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
> These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for
> users looking for closed paths.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> au/attachments/20230921/a752981a/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:32:16 +1000
> From: "Sebastian S." 
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, Andrew Harvey
>   , Mark Pulley 
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I recall these discussions vaguely.
> Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers
> or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I
> understand why not having them in a map is in their interests.
> 
> 
> On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey
>  wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> >
> >> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS
> >> has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers
> >> National Park).
> >>
> >> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion
> >> were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> >> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> >> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised
> >> below.)
> >>
> >> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,
> >> tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in
> >> which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do
> >> we need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?
> >>
> >
> >We have
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycli
> >ng_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
> ><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycl
> >ing_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
> >
> >Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use,
> >but with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage
> etc.
> >
> >Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
> >These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data
> >for users looking for closed paths.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> au/attachments/20230922/3cec4504/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Davidson]

On 22/9/23 16:37, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be 
removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do 
everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track 
managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and 
if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations 
will help.


I don't agree. OSM has a map what is on the ground principle. If the 
track exists, then it exists. We have tagging to represent the legal 
situation.


If you are going to allow one group to censor the map, then you are 
going to have to let everyone.


By the way, I have no interest in being a good corporate anything.


___
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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Nicely put, Phil! :-)

Agree with everything you say.

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:43, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers
> also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area
> is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.
>
>
>
> Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many
> years and there will likely be remains of the
> closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on some
> imagery, for an extended period of time.
>
>
>
> I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the
> desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see
> those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to
> previous levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going
> there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being
> undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=*type* along
> with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the
> ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left to very
> slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow
> and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full
> rehabilitation to take place.
>
>
>
> So my view is…
>
>
>
>- If you *cant* see the track on the imagery – delete it.
>- If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to
>discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the managers to
>actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you are concerned on
>the tagging then its also likely that the area is a favourite place for
>you. Work with the managers!
>- Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged
>tracks do not appear on public maps
>
>
>
> Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)
>
>
>
> Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife
> for many years so I am slightly biased.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sebastian S. 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ;
> Mark Pulley 
> *Cc:* OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
>
>
>
> I recall these discussions vaguely.
> Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers
> or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I
> understand why not having them in a map is in their interests.
>
>
>
> On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
> Park).
>
>
>
> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
> reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
>
> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)
>
>
>
> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as
> informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case
> access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a
> policy to the wiki for similar situations?
>
>
>
> We have
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
>
>
>
> Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
> with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.
>
>
>
> Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
> These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for
> users looking for closed paths.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be 
removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do everything 
possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers also have a 
responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area is high use then 
signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.

 

Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many years 
and there will likely be remains of the closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks 
showing in some environments, on some imagery, for an extended period of time.

 

I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the 
desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see those 
tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to previous 
levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.

 

In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going there. 
I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being undertaken then a 
better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=type along with access=no. Many such 
tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only and the 
rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some 
occasional bars to impede water flow and allow buildup of debris. Again, it 
will take many years for full rehabilitation to take place. 

 

So my view is…

 

*   If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*   If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to 
discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the managers to 
actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you are concerned on the 
tagging then its also likely that the area is a favourite place for you. Work 
with the managers!
*   Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged tracks 
do not appear on public maps

 

Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)

 

Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife for 
many years so I am slightly biased.

 

From: Sebastian S.  
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ; Mark 
Pulley 
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

 

I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers or gov 
wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I understand why 
not having them in a map is in their interests.

 

On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

 

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has deleted 
some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National Park).

 

These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were 
reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.

These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a different 
NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)

 

I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as 
informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case access=no 
can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a policy to the 
wiki for similar situations?

 

We have 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
 

 

Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but with 
the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.

 

Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) - These 
should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for users 
looking for closed paths.

 

___
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

[Sebastian S.]

I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers or gov 
wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I understand why 
not having them in a map is in their interests.


On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
>> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
>> Park).
>>
>> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
>> reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
>> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
>> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)
>>
>> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as
>> informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case
>> access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a
>> policy to the wiki for similar situations?
>>
>
>We have
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
>
>
>Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
>with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.
>
>Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) - These
>should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for users
>looking for closed paths.
___
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

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
> Park).
>
> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
> reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)
>
> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as
> informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case
> access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a
> policy to the wiki for similar situations?
>

We have
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path


Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.

Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) - These
should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for users
looking for closed paths.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has deleted 
some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National Park).

These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were 
reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a different 
NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)

I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as 
informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case access=no 
can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a policy to the 
wiki for similar situations?

Summary of the edits to this area:
31/12/08 macAlba https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/694496
ways initially added by survey

3/10/18 mrpulley https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63140199
I split ways (separating the official path from the unofficial path). I don't 
see the informal paths at that survey (but I hadn't been looking for them)

24/1/22 Guy Hodgson https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116519029
(see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116520175 - similar situation 
in Macquarie Pass National Park)
Ways deleted (Guy is employee of NPWS, tasked by NPWS ranger to delete the ways)

25/1/22 aharvey https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116568934
Reversion of previous changeset following discussion

18/4/22 mrpulley https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119854924
I visit and resurvey the paths. One path difficult to find (way 29415025), 
others are visible

26/6/23 Stephen Stenberg https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137773356
(Stephen is employee of NPWS, tasked by NPWS staff to remove the ways)
Addition of access = no
foot=yes changed to foot=no
informal=yes changed to informal=no (this tag change is incorrect)
note=These tracks no longer exist. Edit from New South Wales National Parks and 
Wildlife Services.

1/9/23 Stephen Stenberg https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140660737
Addition of width=0
note=These tracks no longer exist. Based on NSW Spatial Data.
source=survey;local knowledge;NSW Spatial Services

18/9/23 Firefishy https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141445146
Ways are deleted. (Not sure how Firefishy became involved - he's part of the 
OpenStreetMap Sysadmin team)

Mark P.

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