Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Andrew,

 

I would like to agree with you but after 30 years in the field I can tell you 
that ‘discouragement’ seldom works especially where self/club interest is at 
stake. It has taken a concerted effort to get this far and maintain some sense 
of order. The plethora of internet blogs makes it even harder and I monitor 
them as much as I can and regularly ask that they pull down GPS traces and hand 
drawn maps. Much information exchange goes on behind the scenes but at least 
then the individuals are making a conscious decision that they will accept the 
impacts of more visitors into areas that they have discovered themselves. Some 
folks, like me, don’t give out any information on these areas so they can be 
‘discovered” just the same as I did.

 

Ironically, one of those reports lists several tracks that don’t appear on 
maps. If I make the full strategy available they will all be listed (in text 
form).

 

I would be happier with a do_not_render=yes but I suspect many will see that as 
a pretty useless tag (if you cant render it, why bother adding it and will it 
be honoured by renderers). It took us years to convince TASMAP that they should 
be responsible and not add the tracks to public maps. In return we  provided 
gps traces of most of the major walk tracks and assisted with information for 
the Parks Series of maps (I suspect their best sellers!).

 

Personally, I would still ask a mapper to remove the track if its in one of the 
track classes or areas where its not appropriate

 

Don’t get me wrong, Parks are for people to use but unfortunately the impacts 
can be high with very small numbers (in some environments) and the lack of 
detail on maps is just one technique that is used by managers at that remote 
end of the walking spectrum (or in delicate environments). Its holding some 
impacts at bay at the moment until more folks agree to numbers restrictions in 
some areas.

 

This may be more of an issue in Tasmania than other Australian states because 
of both the high conservation values and the remote/delicate nature of many 
areas. 

 

Here is another good read on the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum/Landscape 
Classification System

http://www.projectnatureed.com.au/web%20library/micro-ROS.pdf

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 26 October 2020 12:01 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: Little Maps ; OSM Aust Discussion List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

 

Thanks Phill. Interesting read. I know not everyone will agree with me, but 
after reading the walking track classification policy I'm more convinced that 
we should tag as publicity=discouraged in the OSM database, and then document 
that tag so that map makers using OSM data can interpret it when putting 
together walking guides and maps.

 

As for the evaluation report on track management, glad to see people are doing 
research and writing about it. I would hope that one day OSM data becomes 
detailed enough to record many of the track attributes described in the report 
like track width, erosion severity, sensitivity of the surface and to record 
the extent of track construction and used (we have surface at the moment which 
can tag where stones are placed, wood planks etc but we can do more).

 

 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 07:33, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Andrew,

 

There is a document here that spells out how the Tasmanian PWS uses the various 
track classification schemes. Search for ‘publicity’ to get to the 
classifications that should not be on maps.

 

https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Walking_Track_Classification_Policy_.pdf

 

and an evaluation report on track management in general

 

https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Evaluation_Report__Back-country_walking_track_management_in_the_Tasmanian_Wilderness_WHA.pdf

 

I can load up the actual walking track strategies if you like but they are 
hefty volumes!

 

From: Andrew Harvey < <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 
andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Sunday, 25 October 2020 10:57 PM
To: Phil Wyatt < <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> p...@wyatt-family.com>
Cc: Little Maps < <mailto:mapslit...@gmail.com> mapslit...@gmail.com>; OSM Aust 
Discussion List < <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

 

 

 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 11:02, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Folks,

 

For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as point 
4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….

 

4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations or 
standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are not 
publicised on 

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Little Maps]

Hi Kim, I don’t believe this problem would exist given the use case described 
in the text, which is as follows...

A mapper has evidence from a legal source (eg Bing, Strava, GPX trace) of a 
track which they are contemplating adding to OSM. Should they decide to add it, 
then the source:geometry tag would be Bing etc, as normal.

If they find a management plan that provides adequate reasons why it is 
preferable that the track not be mapped then the mapper may decide not to add 
the track. By not proceeding, no copyright breach can occur.

However, your point is a good one, and it may be useful to add a caveat to the 
end of the text like the following...

“As always, copyrighted material in published reports should not be added to 
OSM.”

> On 26 Oct 2020, at 9:53 am, Kim Oldfield  wrote:
> 
>  Will this cause copyright problems, particularly as many government 
> agencies don't understand the benefits of open licenses?
> 
>> On 25/10/20 5:31 pm, Little Maps wrote:
>> MAPPERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB OR TO 
>> DISCUSS EDITS WITH AGENCY STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS IN 
>> CONSERVATION RESERVES.
> 
> ___
> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

Thanks Phill. Interesting read. I know not everyone will agree with me, but
after reading the walking track classification policy I'm more convinced
that we should tag as publicity=discouraged in the OSM database, and then
document that tag so that map makers using OSM data can interpret it when
putting together walking guides and maps.

As for the evaluation report on track management, glad to see people are
doing research and writing about it. I would hope that one day OSM data
becomes detailed enough to record many of the track attributes described in
the report like track width, erosion severity, sensitivity of the surface
and to record the extent of track construction and used (we have surface at
the moment which can tag where stones are placed, wood planks etc but we
can do more).


On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 07:33, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> There is a document here that spells out how the Tasmanian PWS uses the
> various track classification schemes. Search for ‘publicity’ to get to the
> classifications that should not be on maps.
>
>
>
> https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Walking_Track_Classification_Policy_.pdf
>
>
>
> and an evaluation report on track management in general
>
>
>
>
> https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Evaluation_Report__Back-country_walking_track_management_in_the_Tasmanian_Wilderness_WHA.pdf
>
>
>
> I can load up the actual walking track strategies if you like but they are
> hefty volumes!
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Harvey 
> *Sent:* Sunday, 25 October 2020 10:57 PM
> *To:* Phil Wyatt 
> *Cc:* Little Maps ; OSM Aust Discussion List <
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 11:02, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as
> point 4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….
>
>
>
> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes
> and pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management
> plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such
> regulations or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such
> ‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the
> managing authority prior to adding such tracks.
>
>
>
> Even though I cringe at a Don'tRender=yes tag, instead of self censoring
> our database, I'd rather add a tag to say the operator requests not to
> display these tracks to users. For me OSM is still a database not a map, so
> using such a tag makes the data more accurate and lets the real map
> publishers who use OSM data decide what to show or not. While still
> allowing researchers, park management and the interested public to see
> what's going on in the park in terms of actual informal/unauthorised trails
> exist.
>
>
>
> Are there any park management plans which include these clases? I'm
> interested to take a look and see what other places it applies too.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Kim Oldfield]

Will this cause copyright problems, particularly as many government 
agencies don't understand the benefits of open licenses?


On 25/10/20 5:31 pm, Little Maps wrote:
MAPPERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB 
OR TO DISCUSS EDITS WITH AGENCY STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS 
IN CONSERVATION RESERVES.


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Ian,

 

We could actually just use the word ‘reserves’ given there are so many 
different types across the country and the request could be in any type of 
reserved land.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Little Maps  
Sent: Sunday, 25 October 2020 5:32 PM
To: OSM Aust Discussion List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

 

Hi Phil, thanks for drafting this, it’s great to have a concrete statement to 
discuss. I agree with the broad sentiment but suggest two changes, one minor 
and the other more substantive, as follows (deletions in strike through and 
additions in all caps)

 

4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
pads’ in remote CONSERVATION reserves, as they may well be covered by 
management plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. 
Such regulations or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such 
‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the 
managing authority prior to adding such tracks. MAPPERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO 
PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB OR TO DISCUSS EDITS WITH AGENCY 
STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS IN CONSERVATION RESERVES.

 

 

Rationale for changes... (1) not all sensitive areas are remote, and many 
issues arise in reserves close to major cities. (2). Understanding the broader 
context surrounding a potential mapping change may well be a hallmark of good 
mapping, but mappers bear no responsibility to await a decision from a 
management agency *before* they add or edit tracks.





A likely response from an under-staffed government agency to an unknown mapper 
is something like, “Thank you for your message. Your call is important to us. 
We will endeavour to respond to you at the earliest opportunity.” Repeatedly. I 
would suggest that a less declarative statement is far more appropriate in this 
instance.

 

 Thanks once again, I appreciate everyone’s input on the issue. Best wishes Ian

 

 

On 25 Oct 2020, at 10:59 am, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:



Hi Folks,

 

For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as point 
4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….

 

4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations or 
standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are not 
publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing authority 
prior to adding such tracks.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Andrew,

 

There is a document here that spells out how the Tasmanian PWS uses the various 
track classification schemes. Search for ‘publicity’ to get to the 
classifications that should not be on maps.

 

https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Walking_Track_Classification_Policy_.pdf

 

and an evaluation report on track management in general

 

https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Evaluation_Report__Back-country_walking_track_management_in_the_Tasmanian_Wilderness_WHA.pdf

 

I can load up the actual walking track strategies if you like but they are 
hefty volumes!

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Sunday, 25 October 2020 10:57 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: Little Maps ; OSM Aust Discussion List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

 

 

 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 11:02, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Folks,

 

For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as point 
4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….

 

4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations or 
standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are not 
publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing authority 
prior to adding such tracks.

 

Even though I cringe at a Don'tRender=yes tag, instead of self censoring our 
database, I'd rather add a tag to say the operator requests not to display 
these tracks to users. For me OSM is still a database not a map, so using such 
a tag makes the data more accurate and lets the real map publishers who use OSM 
data decide what to show or not. While still allowing researchers, park 
management and the interested public to see what's going on in the park in 
terms of actual informal/unauthorised trails exist.

 

Are there any park management plans which include these clases? I'm interested 
to take a look and see what other places it applies too.

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Important thing to note is that
while nothing makes you obligated
to map tracks in some area,
recommendations/guidelines like this
are not allowing you to delete existing objects
mapped by someone else.

25 Oct 2020, 07:31 by mapslit...@gmail.com:

> Hi Phil, thanks for drafting this, it’s great to have a concrete statement to 
> discuss. I agree with the broad sentiment but suggest two changes, one minor 
> and the other more substantive, as follows (deletions in strike through 
> and additions in all caps)
>
>
> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
> pads’ in > remote>  CONSERVATION reserves, as they may well be covered by 
> management plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. 
> Such regulations or standards (> AS2156 <>> )  may request that the location 
> of such ‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. > You should seek clarification 
> from the managing authority prior to adding such tracks. > MAPPERS ARE 
> ENCOURAGED TO PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB OR TO DISCUSS EDITS 
> WITH AGENCY STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS IN CONSERVATION RESERVES.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rationale for changes... (1) not all sensitive areas are remote, and many 
> issues arise in reserves close to major cities. (2). Understanding the 
> broader context surrounding a potential mapping change may well be a hallmark 
> of good mapping, but mappers bear no responsibility to await a decision from 
> a management agency *before* they add or edit tracks.
>
>
>
>
>
> A likely response from an under-staffed government agency to an unknown 
> mapper is something like, “Thank you for your message. Your call is important 
> to us. We will endeavour to respond to you at the earliest opportunity.” 
> Repeatedly. I would suggest that a less declarative statement is far more 
> appropriate in this instance.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Thanks once again, I appreciate everyone’s input on the issue. Best wishes 
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 25 Oct 2020, at 10:59 am, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as 
>> point 4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
>> pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
>> standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations 
>> or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are 
>> not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing 
>> authority prior to adding such tracks.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 11:02, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as
> point 4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….
>
>
>
> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes
> and pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management
> plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such
> regulations or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such
> ‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the
> managing authority prior to adding such tracks.
>

Even though I cringe at a Don'tRender=yes tag, instead of self censoring
our database, I'd rather add a tag to say the operator requests not to
display these tracks to users. For me OSM is still a database not a map, so
using such a tag makes the data more accurate and lets the real map
publishers who use OSM data decide what to show or not. While still
allowing researchers, park management and the interested public to see
what's going on in the park in terms of actual informal/unauthorised trails
exist.

Are there any park management plans which include these clases? I'm
interested to take a look and see what other places it applies too.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Little Maps]

Hi Phil, thanks for drafting this, it’s great to have a concrete statement to 
discuss. I agree with the broad sentiment but suggest two changes, one minor 
and the other more substantive, as follows (deletions in strike through and 
additions in all caps)

4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
pads’ in remote CONSERVATION reserves, as they may well be covered by 
management plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. 
Such regulations or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such 
‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the 
managing authority prior to adding such tracks. MAPPERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO 
PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB OR TO DISCUSS EDITS WITH AGENCY 
STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS IN CONSERVATION RESERVES.


Rationale for changes... (1) not all sensitive areas are remote, and many 
issues arise in reserves close to major cities. (2). Understanding the broader 
context surrounding a potential mapping change may well be a hallmark of good 
mapping, but mappers bear no responsibility to await a decision from a 
management agency *before* they add or edit tracks.

A likely response from an under-staffed government agency to an unknown mapper 
is something like, “Thank you for your message. Your call is important to us. 
We will endeavour to respond to you at the earliest opportunity.” Repeatedly. I 
would suggest that a less declarative statement is far more appropriate in this 
instance.

 Thanks once again, I appreciate everyone’s input on the issue. Best wishes Ian


> On 25 Oct 2020, at 10:59 am, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
>  
> For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as 
> point 4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….
>  
> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
> pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
> standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations 
> or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are not 
> publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing authority 
> prior to adding such tracks.
>  
> Cheers - Phil
>  
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as point 
4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….

 

4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations or 
standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are not 
publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing authority 
prior to adding such tracks.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Little Maps  
Sent: Friday, 23 October 2020 9:35 PM
To: OSM Aust Discussion List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

 

Hi folks, thanks for a very interesting discussion. It was great to hear from 
people who don’t often pipe up on the forum. Whilst it started off informative 
and insightful, it didn’t take long to reach into rhetoric about Russia and 
guns/maps don’t kill people ... neither of which is particularly helpful.

 

The original issue is clearly very important, so can I ask a much more basic 
question what text should we add to the Australian Tagging Guidelines, 
which give no guidance on the matter? The proportion of mappers who read the 
guidelines may be small but must be much larger than those who read this 
listserve. If the outcome of this discussion isn’t consolidated I for one would 
see this a somewhat wasted opportunity.

 

Best wishes Ian

 





On 23 Oct 2020, at 9:12 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

 

 

 

 

23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> :

A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
Don'tRender tag

'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?

Technically it is possible but it would require license

change that would be problematic

both from legal viewpoint (making such rule effective

would be tricky at best)

and unlikely to be accepted by osm community.

 

It is not impossible as in "can be established

with math proof to be illogically and therefore impossible"

but impossible as in "I will stop conflict in

Middle East by posting on Twitter'.

 

'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not an 
acceptable edit'

I don't think anybody suggested it was.

This "solution" regularly appears in such

topics about illegal or unwanted paths.

'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped and 
rendered in OSM.'

Nobody said that Russia should should be able to

It was just proposed that owners or operator 

of an area would be able to suppress 

rendering of objects there.

 

Its a point for discussion. What do you think should happen?

Paths existing but illegal to use should

be marked and tagged with access tags.

 

Path destroyed should be deleted from OSM.

 

Paths but existing should not be mapped in OSM.

 

Why single out Russia?

AFAIK they have laws forbidding mapping

locations of military bases.

 

PS thanks Steve for your second email.

thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'

 

Tony

 

 

 

Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> 
:

I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a women's 
refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the process. And it doesn't 
wash with me to say they should put a guard at the door because I have mapped a 
refuge.

Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not mapping 
private info.

 

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.

Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM, only slightly 
more red.

This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)

 

You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and 
Strava.

Any decent router will not route over them.

Graeme

Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and don't 
have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.

 

I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated for the 
benefit that results but here goes:

 

a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag

OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode

This is a bad idea.

A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
Don'tRender tag

That is fortunately impossible.

 

By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of addition and 
deletion and edit wars.

You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.

 

Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not an 
acceptable edit.

Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a lan

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 11:17, Greg Lauer  wrote:

>
> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
> tagged as such but not visible on the map).
>
> I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
> as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
> trail [Closed]
>

Just thinking about this.

One problem there, could be that people's mapping app's aren't up to date?

eg I use OSMand, which only updates ~monthly, & I may then only download a
new copy of the updated map 2 - 3 times a year, so those, now closed,
tracks could well still be shown as open & valid. Mind you, having said
that, they are then probably riding around a sign saying Track Closed, &
there's not much we can do about that!

Maybe they need more "Ignore Your GPS" signs! :-)
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.9748643,153.164579,3a,15y,328.13h,87.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjUXRGta4I6LJZu9rtBDXvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/10/2020 04:49, Brendan Barnes wrote:


Back to my original post which I was seeking advice on, I was 
requesting clarity of mapping an official hiking route, which a small 
section of it happens to not follow a defined track/path and a compass 
bearing is required. The hiking route is _official_: it has NSW NPWS 
signage which I have personally surveyed at the start of the segment 
denoting the "off track" route, the Australian Alps National Parks 
Cooperative Management Program publishes a map also detailing it, and 
all popular hiking guides have it listed, too. This small off track 
section forms part of the official route.


I've taken Andrew's advice and added fuzzy=500 to the way.



Thanks - there's nore usage of that than I was expecting (see 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fuzzy ), although only 14 of 
those are lines rather than polygons.


On the other side of the world I've tended to use trail_visibility tags 
(which I think were mentioned earlier) to achieve the same thing; see 
e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/430909045 .  Something that 
renders the route but not the local path will show that as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=54.40165=-0.93245 
.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 18:54, stevea  wrote:

> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed
> (and tagged as such but not visible on the map).
>
> They are not blind if they are riding.  They are not blind, but let’s
> agree foolish if they are riding on closed trails which are signed as
> closed trails (so signed on the ground), regardless of what MapsMe says,
> because MapsMe doesn’t make people ride on closed trails, people foolishly
> choosing to ignore signs that say “Closed Trail” are what make people ride
> on closed trails.  Their choice, not MapsMe “making them.”  Let’s remember
> that OSM is a data project, not one to curate a specific renderer to
> display with specific semiotics:  getting data correct is paramount.
>

We shouldn't degrade the quality of the OSM just because a downstream app
chooses not to show the access tag we've added, all we can do is keep
adding these kinds of tags and do things to improve the whole tagging
ecosystem to make it easier for data consumers to understand what the tags
mean and how to interpret them.

I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
> as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
> trail [Closed]
>
>
Send feedback to the app, post feedback, promote alternative maps and apps
that do respect the way things are tagged and which display this
information to users appropriately.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[stevea]

On Oct 23, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Greg Lauer  wrote:
> I have not seen any apps that, for example, display any attribute (or 
> graphic) to show a track is closed.

Try Carto (Standard) on a web page, how most users see OSM’s data as a map.  
When tagged access=no, for example, a highway=path does not show as red dots, 
but rather as faint grey dots.

> So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the issue 
> of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),

Mmmm, “false” (see above) and “usually false” (as closed trails usually stay 
closed trails, rather than be “fluid").  OSM maps “what is,” not “what we wish 
the world to be."

> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and 
> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and 
> tagged as such but not visible on the map).

They are not blind if they are riding.  They are not blind, but let’s agree 
foolish if they are riding on closed trails which are signed as closed trails 
(so signed on the ground), regardless of what MapsMe says, because MapsMe 
doesn’t make people ride on closed trails, people foolishly choosing to ignore 
signs that say “Closed Trail” are what make people ride on closed trails.  
Their choice, not MapsMe “making them.”  Let’s remember that OSM is a data 
project, not one to curate a specific renderer to display with specific 
semiotics:  getting data correct is paramount.

> I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail as 
> closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an 
> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz trail 
> [Closed]

It sounds like you are suggesting ’tagging to render’ when you suggest 
something contrary to our wiki, which admonishes us to put into the name key 
“the name only.”  I ask “what effect DO you hope to have by tagging a trail as 
closed?”  If it is to “cause” potential users of a trail not to, I’d say you 
need to lower your expectations, as that is not what OSM either does or is 
designed to do.  When in the real world, pay attention to its signs.  Maps 
strive to be a good representation of the real world, but please do not confuse 
the map for the territory.

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[forster]

Hi Mateusz

Are there nature reserves in Australia with rules "no access allowed  
unless signed otherwise"


There are parks where access is limited to authorised tracks. You are  
not allowed off track. The authorised tracks are indicated by  
signposts and a copyright map. But I don't know the legal definition  
of the authorised tracks, whether its the signposts, the map or  
something else that defines them.


Tony





23 Oct 2020, 22:24 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:


Quoting Andrew Harvey :



It's just after hearing park authorities raise concerns about us showing
un-authorised tracks on OSM, my reaction is usually how are we or anyone
supposed to know which tracks are authorised and which aren't unless there
is signage to indicate that.



Hi Andrew
Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days. 


Are there nature reserves in Australia with
rules
"no access allowed unless signed otherwise"?




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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 13:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In regard to access=no, & following along from my mention of Uluru, a
> similar point comes up about Mt Warning. The local Aboriginal people would
> prefer that no-one climb the Mountain, but it is still legally open for all
> to do so. Should we have an access=discouraged?
>

Yes access=discouraged is well documented
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values and
I think would make sense to use.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 15:49, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
> 24 Oct 2020, 00:34 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>
> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
> signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
> operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
> not have intentionally created.
>
> If protected area has rule "access is illegal
> unless
> signed otherwise" or "access allowed only on
> signposted trails" then such way-specific signage
> is not necessary to use access tags.
>

At least for NSW from my understanding of the relavent legislation
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2009-0427
you're
free to go anywhere in the protected areas managed by NPWS unless the area
is marked as closed "by means of notices displayed in, or at the boundary
of, the park or part of the park to which the notices relate or by means of
written notices given to park users". So there is no default "access is
illegal unless signed otherwise" it's the opposite "all access is legal
unless signed otherwise".

There are some protected areas where access is restricted unless you have a
permit like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/484516919, but these are rare.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 15:51, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 23 Oct 2020, 22:24 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
>
> Are there nature reserves in Australia with
>
> rules
>
"no access allowed unless signed otherwise"?

Per above, I'm not sure about other states, but generally my understanding
is this is not the case in NSW.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

24 Oct 2020, 00:34 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be 
> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and 
> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we 
> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install signage 
> to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park operators, 
> it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might not have 
> intentionally created.
>
If protected area has rule "access is illegal
unless
signed otherwise" or "access allowed only on 
signposted trails" then such way-specific signage
is not necessary to use access tags.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

For Tasmania all the tracks that are permitted on ‘public maps’ are available 
in the transport layer and tagged with the AS2156 walking track standard

 

https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/opendata/

 

The routes, pads, known walking destination data that is known to managing 
authorities is held by those agencies and supplied as restricted layers to 
search and rescue and emergency services agencies (and appears on their maps). 
This is to ensure that folks that head out to these areas understand the 
terminology – ie whilst there may be a line on the map no definition will be 
found on the ground…. Or …. This is a known route to Mountain XYZ.

 

Until recently many of these remote areas were also monitored, via high 
resolution imagery and field surveys, as part of research into walker (and 
horse and bike) impacts as part of the state parks and reserves management.

 

Crowd sourcing is fine, so long as those crowd sourcing also know the 
management prescriptions for the areas involved. This sort of stuff is 
regularly discussed on Australian bushwalking forums along with issues such as 
promotion of remote areas by photographers, instagrammers and guide book 
authors. Its an extremely complex subject, but also a fascinating insight into 
how some folks feel about their own impacts on wild lands.

 

I am happy to help with some words for the wiki that spell out why such 
restrictions might be in place and why some areas should not be mapped.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Greg Lauer  
Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2020 12:14 PM
To: Andrew Harvey 
Cc: talk-au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

 

Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar with 
the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip. Where is 
the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are really 
dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps that, for 
example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is closed.

 

So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the issue of 
maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc), 

 

The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and 
seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and 
tagged as such but not visible on the map).

 

I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail as 
closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an 
attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz trail 
[Closed]

 

It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the lead of 
DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or USGS 
(https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make the relevant data open 
(and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.

 

Greg

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

Hi Andrew
Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.  
Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of  
illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.

 

It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not illegal to 
use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at the trail start 
makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people will see that sign and 
choose not walk there, compared to no signage when they'd be like oh there's a 
track here, nothing to say it can't be used.

 

A park will often  
have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which  
can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping  
everything.

 

"keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like formed 
trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to me still 
allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.

 

Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have  
difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.

 

I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive landscapes 
to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been closed then we 
should mark it as access=no which data consumers should treat that as no open 
to the public.

 

I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be constantly 
monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and installing signage 
everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we authorise everywhere else 
is not authorised, I guess they can install signage to that effect. I guess 
that's one use case there of OSM for park operators, it can help alert you of 
where tracks are forming that you might not have intentionally created.

__

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Brendan Barnes]

Thanks all for the discussion. I can see there will be further separate
discussion around the OSM mapping of landowner-unsanctioned tracks/paths.

Back to my original post which I was seeking advice on, I was requesting
clarity of mapping an official hiking route, which a small section of it
happens to not follow a defined track/path and a compass bearing is
required. The hiking route is *official*: it has NSW NPWS signage which I
have personally surveyed at the start of the segment denoting the "off
track" route, the Australian Alps National Parks Cooperative Management
Program publishes a map also detailing it, and all popular hiking guides
have it listed, too. This small off track section forms part of the
official route.

I've taken Andrew's advice and added fuzzy=500 to the way.


On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 14:14, Brendan Barnes  wrote:

> Hey Greg,
>
> I agree we shouldn't tag for the renderer. Have you looked at lifecycle
> tags such as was:highway=path? A lifecycle prefix like this does a good
> job with Carto, OsmAnd, and other renderers and not using those former
> (formal or informal) paths for browsing or routing by end users. However
> they can show up in OSM editors for mappers to see the history and note.
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 12:17, Greg Lauer  wrote:
>
>> Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
>> with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
>> Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
>> really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
>> that, for example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is
>> closed.
>>
>> So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the
>> issue of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),
>>
>> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
>> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
>> tagged as such but not visible on the map).
>>
>> I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
>> as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
>> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
>> trail [Closed]
>>
>> It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the
>> lead of DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or
>> USGS (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make
>> the relevant data open (and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24,  wrote:
>>>
 Hi Andrew
 Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
 Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
 illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not
>>> illegal to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at
>>> the trail start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people
>>> will see that sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when
>>> they'd be like oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.
>>>
>>>
 A park will often
 have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
 can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
 everything.

>>>
>>> "keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
>>> formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
>>> me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.
>>>
>>>
 Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
 difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.

>>>
>>> I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
>>> landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
>>> closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
>>> treat that as no open to the public.
>>>
>>> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
>>> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
>>> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
>>> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
>>> signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
>>> operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
>>> not have intentionally created.
>>> ___
>>> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Brendan Barnes]

Hey Greg,

I agree we shouldn't tag for the renderer. Have you looked at lifecycle
tags such as was:highway=path? A lifecycle prefix like this does a good job
with Carto, OsmAnd, and other renderers and not using those former (formal
or informal) paths for browsing or routing by end users. However they can
show up in OSM editors for mappers to see the history and note.


On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 12:17, Greg Lauer  wrote:

> Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
> with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
> Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
> really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
> that, for example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is
> closed.
>
> So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the
> issue of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),
>
> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
> tagged as such but not visible on the map).
>
> I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
> as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
> trail [Closed]
>
> It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the
> lead of DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or
> USGS (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make
> the relevant data open (and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24,  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew
>>> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
>>> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
>>> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
>>
>>
>> It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not
>> illegal to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at
>> the trail start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people
>> will see that sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when
>> they'd be like oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.
>>
>>
>>> A park will often
>>> have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
>>> can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
>>> everything.
>>>
>>
>> "keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
>> formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
>> me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.
>>
>>
>>> Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
>>> difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.
>>>
>>
>> I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
>> landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
>> closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
>> treat that as no open to the public.
>>
>> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
>> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
>> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
>> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
>> signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
>> operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
>> not have intentionally created.
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Little Maps  wrote:

> what text should we add to the Australian Tagging Guidelines, which give
> no guidance on the matter?
>

We do have guidelines concerning sacred sites
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_sites.2C_art-works_and_sacred_places

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 21:13, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>  we can and still should map as either bicycle=no or access=no. Ideally
> there would be signage either at the start of the track or somewhere else
> around the park boundary to indicate this.
>

In regard to access=no, & following along from my mention of Uluru, a
similar point comes up about Mt Warning. The local Aboriginal people would
prefer that no-one climb the Mountain, but it is still legally open for all
to do so. Should we have an access=discouraged?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Greg Lauer]

Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
that, for example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is
closed.

So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the
issue of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),

The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
tagged as such but not visible on the map).

I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
trail [Closed]

It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the lead
of DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or USGS (
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make the relevant data
open (and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.

Greg




On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew
>> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
>> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
>> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
>
>
> It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not
> illegal to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at
> the trail start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people
> will see that sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when
> they'd be like oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.
>
>
>> A park will often
>> have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
>> can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
>> everything.
>>
>
> "keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
> formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
> me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.
>
>
>> Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
>> difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.
>>
>
> I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
> landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
> closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
> treat that as no open to the public.
>
> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
> signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
> operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
> not have intentionally created.
> ___
> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24,  wrote:

> Hi Andrew
> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.


It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not illegal
to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at the trail
start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people will see that
sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when they'd be like
oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.


> A park will often
> have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
> can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
> everything.
>

"keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.


> Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
> difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.
>

I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
treat that as no open to the public.

I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
not have intentionally created.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[forster]

Quoting Andrew Harvey :


It's just after hearing park authorities raise concerns about us showing
un-authorised tracks on OSM, my reaction is usually how are we or anyone
supposed to know which tracks are authorised and which aren't unless there
is signage to indicate that.


Hi Andrew
Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.  
Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of  
illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic. A park will often  
have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which  
can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping  
everything.


Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have  
difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Adam Steer]

hey all

Very late to the conversation - and responding to concerns way back when
there were only a few replies - relating specifically to the AAWT and
similar 'untracked' areas, and veering a little onto the terrain of illicit
(or pseudo illicit) trails:

I back Phil and Tony's view here, because I think it is important to listen
to people who have experience with on ground management consequences
arising from lines on maps which maybe should not have been drawn.

I would prefer as a user of OSM and also someone who values unmapped
experiences to leave 'off track routes' unmapped. As well as conforming to
desirable local practice (for example avoiding development of future
management issues), it is respectful to the place and the intention of
encouraging an experience that is ever-more-rare. That last one is super
important for not just trails, but many things. Once a line is drawn on a
map, it tends to get used no matter what ethereal permissions are applied.
Many parks in Australia have not nearly enough people on the ground to 'be
gatekeepers' and it is up to the individual using the area to act within
the intention set by the land managers. So 'closed to you' or 'do not route
here' is often meaningless (or in the least confusing).

To say 'its just data/evidence' is to completely ignore the real world
impact of a (sometimes remote) decision - in this case an 'armchair mapper'
might create years of issues for on-ground managers, and erase an
experience which future travellers might wish to have - which is I think is
what Tony and Phil were getting at. It is also missing critical awareness
of how people behave on the ground - if a line exists in a map, people will
use it regardless of virtual signage.

...so like Phil and Tony, my preference would be to not map any kind of
route in an 'off track' area. Of course this means knowing where 'off track
areas' are... and constant curation.

Finally, as a one-time builder of informal tracks with an 'officially we
can't say yes but informally kinda but don't publicise anything and don't
get hurt' arrangement with the land manager, it would have been devastating
to a long term project should those trails have appeared on any map. 7
years later, it is an asset for a small town... but at the time, having
routes show up on a map of any kind would have killed it right there. I
give this example as another reason to not always map stuff because you see
it, and also that 'if trails are there, people will come'.

I guess take from that what you will - I hope it provides material for an
internal 'think a bit about the dogma of mapping all the things always' ;)

Cheers,
Adam

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 13:20, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 19:21,  wrote:
>
>> Andrew
>> Thanks, I hadn't considered life cycle prefixes. There might be
>> problems with disused or abandoned if those reopening the trails
>> argued that they used the trail last week so it was neither disused
>> nor abandoned.
>>
>
> I can see the issue, but still hopefully access=no indicating legal access
> should still be able to be used if it's clear enough that access is not
> permitted.
>
>
>> "illegal tracks", the ones I am thinking of are illegal in both their
>> construction and use, if I recollect correctly, the fine for
>> construction is much much bigger than use. Sorry if the description
>> has baggage or is misleading. Re access=no, if I recollect correctly
>> they still display in OSM, only slightly more red. You probably
>> wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and Strava.
>>
>
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:43, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>> An illegal track in a national park is likely to be one that is cut
>> without the authority of the managing agency. It’s a fairly regular
>> occurrence and often the start of increased impacts in ares that may be
>> reserved for conservation rather than recreation.
>
>
> Thanks for the explanation, I didn't think about unauthorised track
> construction, I had assumed these tracks simply formed over time by
> repeated use, which in itself wouldn't have been illegal unless the area
> was closed. Even then a track that was illegally constructed, wouldn't be
> illegal to use unless it was signposted as such.
>
> It's just after hearing park authorities raise concerns about us showing
> un-authorised tracks on OSM, my reaction is usually how are we or anyone
> supposed to know which tracks are authorised and which aren't unless there
> is signage to indicate that.
> ___
> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 19:21,  wrote:

> Andrew
> Thanks, I hadn't considered life cycle prefixes. There might be
> problems with disused or abandoned if those reopening the trails
> argued that they used the trail last week so it was neither disused
> nor abandoned.
>

I can see the issue, but still hopefully access=no indicating legal access
should still be able to be used if it's clear enough that access is not
permitted.


> "illegal tracks", the ones I am thinking of are illegal in both their
> construction and use, if I recollect correctly, the fine for
> construction is much much bigger than use. Sorry if the description
> has baggage or is misleading. Re access=no, if I recollect correctly
> they still display in OSM, only slightly more red. You probably
> wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and Strava.
>

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:43, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> An illegal track in a national park is likely to be one that is cut
> without the authority of the managing agency. It’s a fairly regular
> occurrence and often the start of increased impacts in ares that may be
> reserved for conservation rather than recreation.


Thanks for the explanation, I didn't think about unauthorised track
construction, I had assumed these tracks simply formed over time by
repeated use, which in itself wouldn't have been illegal unless the area
was closed. Even then a track that was illegally constructed, wouldn't be
illegal to use unless it was signposted as such.

It's just after hearing park authorities raise concerns about us showing
un-authorised tracks on OSM, my reaction is usually how are we or anyone
supposed to know which tracks are authorised and which aren't unless there
is signage to indicate that.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 21:51,  wrote:

> Hi Andrew
>
> I am intrigued by your suggestion of lifecycle.
>
> For a mountain bike trail thats just had its berms and jumps dug out
> and scattered and lots and lots of branches dragged across it and a
> sign put up at the head about the construction and use of illegal trails
>
> Is there a suitable lifecycle tag? Its barely disused or abandoned.
> Untrafficable? Destroyed? Deconstructed? Demolished?
>

Yeah so in this case per the descriptions at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix I'd say it should be
one of the "actively removed" tags, could either be
demolished:highway=path, removed:highway=path or razed:highway=path.


> And a week later the sign has been destroyed, branches dragged away
> where you can't go round and berms and jumps reinstated enough to make
> them trafficable? Remove the lifecycle tag?
>

If a vandal spray painted their name on a street sign, we shouldn't rename
it in OSM (unless it really has become commonly known as that by the
community). I'd be happy to still leave it as actively removed for some
time, but if it goes on for an extended period that the track is rebuilt
and still no new signage goes up at some point I don't think we can still
call it "actively removed".

Independently of the lifecycle prefix, if there are park wide rules which
would forbid bicycles we can and still should map as either bicycle=no or
access=no. Ideally there would be signage either at the start of the track
or somewhere else around the park boundary to indicate this.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[forster]

Hi Andrew

I am intrigued by your suggestion of lifecycle.

For a mountain bike trail thats just had its berms and jumps dug out  
and scattered and lots and lots of branches dragged across it and a  
sign put up at the head about the construction and use of illegal trails


Is there a suitable lifecycle tag? Its barely disused or abandoned.  
Untrafficable? Destroyed? Deconstructed? Demolished?


And a week later the sign has been destroyed, branches dragged away  
where you can't go round and berms and jumps reinstated enough to make  
them trafficable? Remove the lifecycle tag?


Thanks
Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, thanks for a very interesting discussion. It was great to hear from 
people who don’t often pipe up on the forum. Whilst it started off informative 
and insightful, it didn’t take long to reach into rhetoric about Russia and 
guns/maps don’t kill people ... neither of which is particularly helpful.

The original issue is clearly very important, so can I ask a much more basic 
question what text should we add to the Australian Tagging Guidelines, 
which give no guidance on the matter? The proportion of mappers who read the 
guidelines may be small but must be much larger than those who read this 
listserve. If the outcome of this discussion isn’t consolidated I for one would 
see this a somewhat wasted opportunity.

Best wishes Ian


> On 23 Oct 2020, at 9:12 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
> 'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?
> Technically it is possible but it would require license
> change that would be problematic
> both from legal viewpoint (making such rule effective
> would be tricky at best)
> and unlikely to be accepted by osm community.
> 
> It is not impossible as in "can be established
> with math proof to be illogically and therefore impossible"
> but impossible as in "I will stop conflict in
> Middle East by posting on Twitter'.
> 
> 'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not 
> an acceptable edit'
> I don't think anybody suggested it was.
> This "solution" regularly appears in such
> topics about illegal or unwanted paths.
> 'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped 
> and rendered in OSM.'
> Nobody said that Russia should should be able to
> It was just proposed that owners or operator 
> of an area would be able to suppress 
> rendering of objects there.
> 
> Its a point for discussion. What do you think should happen?
> Paths existing but illegal to use should
> be marked and tagged with access tags.
> 
> Path destroyed should be deleted from OSM.
> 
> Paths but existing should not be mapped in OSM.
> 
> Why single out Russia?
> AFAIK they have laws forbidding mapping
> locations of military bases.
> 
> PS thanks Steve for your second email.
> thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a women's 
> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the process. And it 
> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at the door because I 
> have mapped a refuge.
> Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not mapping 
> private info.
> 
> See 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
> for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.
> Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM, only 
> slightly more red.
> This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)
> 
> You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and 
> Strava.
> Any decent router will not route over them.
> Graeme
> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and don't 
> have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.
> 
> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated for the 
> benefit that results but here goes:
> 
> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
> This is a bad idea.
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
> That is fortunately impossible.
> 
> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of addition 
> and deletion and edit wars.
> You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.
> 
> Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not 
> an acceptable edit.
> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land owner or 
> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible claim to that then 
> Don'tRender=disputed
> Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped and 
> rendered in OSM.
> 
> I knowingly and deliberately violated
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China
> by mapping objects in China.
> 
> _
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
> 'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?
>
Technically it is possible but it would require licensechange that would be 
problematic
both from legal viewpoint (making such rule effective
would be tricky at best)and unlikely to be accepted by osm community.

It is not impossible as in "can be established
with math proof to be illogically and therefore impossible"
but impossible as in "I will stop conflict in
Middle East by posting on Twitter'.
>
> 'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not 
> an acceptable edit'
> I don't think anybody suggested it was.
>
This "solution" regularly appears in such
topics about illegal or unwanted paths.
> 'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped 
> and rendered in OSM.'
> Nobody said that Russia should should be able to
>
It was just proposed that owners or operator 
of an area would be able to suppress 
rendering of objects there.
>  
> Its a point for discussion. What do you think should happen?
>
Paths existing but illegal to use should
be marked and tagged with access tags.

Path destroyed should be deleted from OSM.

Paths but existing should not be mapped in OSM.

> Why single out Russia?
>
AFAIK they have laws forbidding mapping
locations of military bases.
>
> PS thanks Steve for your second email.
> thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'
>
> Tony
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
>>
>>> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a  women's 
>>> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the  process. And it 
>>> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard  at the door because I 
>>> have mapped a refuge.
>>>
>> Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not  mapping 
>> private info.
>>
>> See  
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
>> for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.
>>
>>> Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM,  only 
>>> slightly more red.
>>>
>> This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)
>>
>>>
>>> You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as  Osmand 
>>> and Strava.
>>>
>> Any decent router will not route over them.
>>
>>> Graeme
>>> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought  and 
>>> don't have any really good answers. Please think of a better  scheme.
>>>
>>> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too  complicated for 
>>> the benefit that results but here goes:
>>>
>>> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
>>> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
>>>
>> This is a bad idea.
>>
>>> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public  policy for 
>>> the Don'tRender tag
>>>
>> That is fortunately impossible.
>>
>>>
>>> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of  
>>> addition and deletion and edit wars.
>>>
>> You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.
>>
>> Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered"  is not 
>> an acceptable edit.
>>
>>> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land  owner or 
>>> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible  claim to that then 
>>> Don'tRender=disputed
>>>
>> Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be  mapped 
>> and rendered in OSM.
>>
>> I knowingly and deliberately violated
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China
>> by mapping objects in China.
>>
>> _
>> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[forster]

Thanks Mateusz

Women's refuges were mentioned as an example, an extreme one, that  
illustrated certain principles, not because they weren't already being  
handled well. Thanks for the information on mapping private  
information but I think the discussion around refuges still stands.


'Any decent router will not route over them.' True but for the tracks  
we are talking about I don't think a lot of people are using routers.


Re Don'tRender=yes, I never suggested it was a good idea, just a  
challenge for others to come up with a better idea.


A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy  
for the Don'tRender tag

'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?

'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered"  
is not an acceptable edit'

I don't think anybody suggested it was.

'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be  
mapped and rendered in OSM.'
Nobody said that Russia should should be able to. Its a point for  
discussion. What do you think should happen? Why? Why single out Russia?


PS thanks Steve for your second email.
thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'

Tony





Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a   
women's refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the   
process. And it doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard  
 at the door because I have mapped a refuge.


Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not   
mapping private info.


See   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.

 Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM,   
only slightly more red.



This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)



 You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as  
 Osmand and Strava.



Any decent router will not route over them.


Graeme
Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought   
and don't have any really good answers. Please think of a better   
scheme.


I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too   
complicated for the benefit that results but here goes:


a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode


This is a bad idea.

A licence condition for data users is that they have a public   
policy for the Don'tRender tag



That is fortunately impossible.



By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of   
addition and deletion and edit wars.



You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.

Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered"  
 is not an acceptable edit.


Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land   
owner or manager is credible, if two organisations have credible   
claim to that then Don'tRender=disputed


Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be   
mapped and rendered in OSM.


I knowingly and deliberately violated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China
by mapping objects in China.

_
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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Phil Wyatt]

An illegal track in a national park is likely to be one that is cut without the 
authority of the managing agency. It’s a fairly regular occurrence and often 
the start of increased impacts in ares that may be reserved for conservation 
rather than recreation.


Cheers - Phil, 
On the road with his iPad 

> On 23 Oct 2020, at 6:09 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 16:08,  wrote:
> 
>> I am writing as someone who does voluntary work for a Parks Service. I  
>> have personal experience with the loop: people use a path because its  
>> mapped, the path is mapped because it exists because people use it
>> 
>> It takes an enormous amount of work to repeatedly deconstruct a track,  
>> allowing time for it to grow over, to be able to remove it from OSM  
>> because it no longer exists.
> 
> It doesn't need to be completely revegetated to be "removed", if it's closed 
> by authorities and signposted or otherwise indicated it's not open for use 
> then I'd be fine with marking it as disused or abandoned per 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay.
> 
>> * national parks illegal tracks
> 
> I hear this phrase a lot, but honestly don't quite understand what it means. 
> In NSW at least, a park authority may "by means of notices displayed in, or 
> at the boundary of, the park or part of the park to which the notices relate 
> or by means of written notices given to park users ... close the park, or any 
> part of the park, to the public", and hence make it illegal to use, but the 
> track itself is not illegal, only illegal to use and in OSM we can easily map 
> these as access=no + some kind of lifecycle prefix stage of decay tag like 
> disused or abandoned.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a women's 
> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the process. And it 
> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at the door because I 
> have mapped a refuge.
>
Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not mapping 
private info.

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.

>  Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM, only 
> slightly more red.
>
This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)

>
>  You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand 
> and Strava.
>
Any decent router will not route over them.

> Graeme
> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and don't 
> have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.
>
> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated for the 
> benefit that results but here goes:
>
> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
>
This is a bad idea.

> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
>
That is fortunately impossible.

>
> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of addition 
> and deletion and edit wars.
>
You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.

Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not an 
acceptable edit.

> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land owner or 
> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible claim to that then 
> Don'tRender=disputed
>
Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped and 
rendered in OSM.

I knowingly and deliberately violated 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China 
by mapping objects in China.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[forster]

Thanks Steve, Andrew and Graeme for your replies.

Steve says "maps don't make people do foolish things, foolish people do"
Steve, I guess we are all here because we strongly believe in open  
data, I would very much prefer if we could map the world exactly as we  
find it.


Your argument is about who is at fault, I would argue it is less  
important to find who is morally culpable and more useful to take a  
purely utilitarian point of view: "given the nature of the world, what  
is the result of my action?"


I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a  
women's refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the  
process. And it doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at  
the door because I have mapped a refuge.


Andrew
Thanks, I hadn't considered life cycle prefixes. There might be  
problems with disused or abandoned if those reopening the trails  
argued that they used the trail last week so it was neither disused  
nor abandoned.


"illegal tracks", the ones I am thinking of are illegal in both their  
construction and use, if I recollect correctly, the fine for  
construction is much much bigger than use. Sorry if the description  
has baggage or is misleading. Re access=no, if I recollect correctly  
they still display in OSM, only slightly more red. You probably  
wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and Strava.


Graeme
Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and  
don't have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.


I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated  
for the benefit that results but here goes:


a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
ID editor would not honour the tag, we see the feature, its tags,  
discussion etc
A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy  
for the Don'tRender tag


I would hope that for cases like women's refuges they were never  
mapped in the first place


By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of  
addition and deletion and edit wars.


Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land owner  
or manager is credible, if two organisations have credible claim to  
that then Don'tRender=disputed


Like I say, maybe too complicated for the benefit.

Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 16:08,  wrote:

> I am writing as someone who does voluntary work for a Parks Service. I
> have personal experience with the loop: people use a path because its
> mapped, the path is mapped because it exists because people use it
>
> It takes an enormous amount of work to repeatedly deconstruct a track,
> allowing time for it to grow over, to be able to remove it from OSM
> because it no longer exists.
>

It doesn't need to be completely revegetated to be "removed", if it's
closed by authorities and signposted or otherwise indicated it's not open
for use then I'd be fine with marking it as disused or abandoned per
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay.

* national parks illegal tracks
>

I hear this phrase a lot, but honestly don't quite understand what it
means. In NSW at least, a park authority may "by means of notices displayed
in, or at the boundary of, the park or part of the park to which the
notices relate or by means of written notices given to park users ... close
the park, or any part of the park, to the public", and hence make it
illegal to use, but the track itself is not illegal, only illegal to use
and in OSM we can easily map these as access=no + some kind of lifecycle
prefix stage of decay tag like disused or abandoned.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 15:10,  wrote:

>
> I can think of a few cases where the land owner or manager might not
> want some features mapped.


Is there anything built into OSM that somebody can request "this" spot /
area not be mapped? I know that G Maps has that feature.

I am not saying we should not map them. I am saying that we need to have a
> mature discussion about why we choose
> to or not to map them:
>
> * sacred sites
>

Not arguing with you, Tony, but where do we stop?

Do we remove Uluru from the map because it's "sacred"? I've seen it
mentioned recently that the Google Walkaround (? on the name - similar to
Street View but done on foot) images of at least the top of Uluru are
apparently all going to be deleted in line with the "No climbing" rule :-(

Another question is how to implement it. Would a 'please do not render' tag
> be of any use?
>

Or maybe have some way of blanking "that" particular "1 km2" out, with the
blank inserted at, & only able to be removed at, DWG level?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[stevea]

Note:  we do have important tags like access=no / access=private that I 
consider a super-important tag to include on things like closed trails.  “A 
trail IS here, but this trail is CLOSED to you.”  That’s good mapping, in my 
opinion.

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[stevea]

Whoops, 11.5 years.
SteveA

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[stevea]

Perhaps I am out of bounds as a just-joined-this-list-today guy-from-the-USA.  
But.  (I have had similar conversations before in OSM and Ive been a volunteer 
here for 12.5 years).

I have mixed feelings when people say OSM shouldn’t map real things in the real 
world.  I see the argument for women’s shelters and closed mountain bike trails 
being destroyed by mountain bikers through erosion and overuse.  However, if 
the “guard at the door” or the “enforcement on the land” isn’t “good enough” 
for the owner / proprietor of the property, it isn’t the fault of OSM simply 
stating “there is a ’this’ here” if any negative consequences arise.  Why is 
this?  Because maps don’t make people trespass, enter places they shouldn’t, 
sneak onto military bases, violate sacred sites uninvited or a host of other 
nefarious activities:  people choose to do these things.  “The map made me do 
it” simply doesn’t fly.

Especially in an open data project, “things that shouldn’t be mapped” is a 
strange concept for me to get my head around:  why not?  It is there.  It 
exists in the real world.  Sure, “keeping the location secret by not putting it 
on the map” is a longtime practice in mapmaking, I’ll agree that this has been 
done since, well, maps.  But does OSM want to continue this?  If we do, who 
gets to decide what gets mapped and what doesn’t?  Individual mappers?  Local 
law?  OSM-community consensus?  These are tricky and seemingly intractable 
questions and I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to decide.  But the only way we 
might do so is to talk about it, so here we are.  I wish us luck.  There are 
plenty of us who say “if it exists in the real world, map it” and “maps don’t 
make people do foolish things, foolish people do."

That’s one person’s opinion, anyway.  Thanks for reading.

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[forster]

Hi all

I am writing as someone who does voluntary work for a Parks Service. I  
have personal experience with the loop: people use a path because its  
mapped, the path is mapped because it exists because people use it


It takes an enormous amount of work to repeatedly deconstruct a track,  
allowing time for it to grow over, to be able to remove it from OSM  
because it no longer exists.


OSM should address the issue of things that should not be mapped. The  
rule "if it exists map it" is valid in 99.999% of the cases but nearly  
all would agree that women's refuges should not be mapped. OSM should  
portray the world accurately but it should also try to do no harm.


I can think of a few cases where the land owner or manager might not  
want some features mapped. I am not saying we should not map them. I  
am saying that we need to have a mature discussion about why we choose  
to or not to map them:


* women's refuges
* country wide 'do not map' requests
* military bases
* private property
* national parks illegal tracks
* rock art
* endangered flora
* sacred sites
* everything I have forgotten

Another question is how to implement it. Would a 'please do not  
render' tag be of any use?


Tony




On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 19:39, Phil Wyatt  wrote:


Personally, as an ex Parks Track Management Officer, I have actively
removed unformed, off track tracks from OSM. There are frequently
management plans for such areas where active promotion of the ?tracks? is
discouraged and book authors are also encouraged to not mark the track in
their guide books.

It?s about ensuring that such off track opportunities are available in the
future and that there is no ?invitation?, and to ensure levels of use that
prevent major impacts.



Whenever I approach this topic, I always keep in mind that OSM should be an
accurate representation of what's on the ground whether we like it or not,
from there it can then serve a range of different downstream users and
applications.

From a management perspective knowing where informal tracks have formed
could be useful. The fact that park managers would already know this
without OSM and maintain it outside of OSM isn't good enough for me, OSM is
transparent and democratic, a park managers internal GIS isn't (and that's
okay, both databases have their place).

Adding a track onto the map isn't saying you legally can use it or it's
officially sanctioned, it's just saying there is evidence of a worn path
here.

So we want to,
1. Do what we can to tag and record the data in OSM more accurately to
distinguish unsactioned tracks. We have a few tags already:

- foot=designated (explicitly signposted or marked as for walkers)
- foot=yes (not explicitly signposted for walkers, but can be used)
- foot=no (signposted as not allowed to walk or physical access blocking)
- informal=yes (created informally, not by an an official body)

This is hard when a track is not signosted, or there are no signposted park
wide rules.

It's tricky because on one hand marking these as informal=yes and then not
rendering informal=yes would cut out a lot of tracks which are informal,
but get a lot of use and generally there no issue with using it, so I still
don't think this is a solved problem.







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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 11:28, Brendan Barnes  wrote:

> Thanks Phil, I appreciate your insights on this.
>
> On the side issue, yes I definitely agree "informal path" track-tracing
> can have an effect on human use in the local, often wilderness,
> environments where they are recorded. However I have a preference to better
> tag these tracks eg abandoned=path or trail_visibility=no etc. Deleting a
> way on OSM loses the context of why it should no longer be used - it's just
> gone. A good example of this is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635206779 - by having access=no,
> removed=yes etc and a clear note on why not to use the way is useful to
> mappers, and it doesn't display on the popular renderers. If the way was
> deleted, in the future there'd be nothing to stop a well-intentioned
> armchair mapper creating a new way based on what they see on aerial
> imagery, who doesn't know about the no entry signage surveyed on the ground.
>

Agreed.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/688547036
 is
another example, but using the lifecyle prefix tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix so
abandoned:highway=path.

Simply tagging removed=yes doesn't tell data consumers what type of feature
was removed here. We don't tag historical features with no evidence on the
ground, but if there's still something on the ground we should try and tag
with the lifecyle prefix or the other style (highway=removed +
removed=path) so we know what kind of thing was removed.


> My question was more about tagging a hiking *route*, not a *track*. I'd
> like to produce AAWT route data from OSM. In real life, the AAWT route
> passes through Dairymans Creek area and I'd like OSM to convey that as it
> does form part of the one long overall AAWT hiking route. Comparing what I
> surveyed on the ground (GPS trace, and noting NPWS signage at wilderness
> boundary) to the official map (not licenced for use -
> https://theaustralianalps.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/map-15.pdf) all
> sources do mark the Dairymans Creek segment as forming part of the overall
> AAWT *route*.
>
> Perhaps Way 813749214 could be widened to an area covering the width of
> the plain? I'm open to ideas. My preference is for "something" to go here
> so OSM matches the context of the one overall AAWT hiking route, rather
> than "nothing" and leave a gap in the AAWT relation.
>

A route is usually a collection of ways, but in this case there is no
actual way for the section which should be navigated off track.

The fuzzy tag was previously proposed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fuzzy as a way to
draw a line on the map with a buffer saying the feature is roughly this
area, but not exactly defined by the line. So while you could use an area
like you suggest, personally I'd opt for a roughly drawn way with fuzzy=yes
or something like that, you don't even really need any tags on that way if
it's a member of the route relation.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 19:39, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Personally, as an ex Parks Track Management Officer, I have actively
> removed unformed, off track tracks from OSM. There are frequently
> management plans for such areas where active promotion of the “tracks” is
> discouraged and book authors are also encouraged to not mark the track in
> their guide books.
>
> It’s about ensuring that such off track opportunities are available in the
> future and that there is no “invitation”, and to ensure levels of use that
> prevent major impacts.
>

Whenever I approach this topic, I always keep in mind that OSM should be an
accurate representation of what's on the ground whether we like it or not,
from there it can then serve a range of different downstream users and
applications.

>From a management perspective knowing where informal tracks have formed
could be useful. The fact that park managers would already know this
without OSM and maintain it outside of OSM isn't good enough for me, OSM is
transparent and democratic, a park managers internal GIS isn't (and that's
okay, both databases have their place).

Adding a track onto the map isn't saying you legally can use it or it's
officially sanctioned, it's just saying there is evidence of a worn path
here.

So we want to,
1. Do what we can to tag and record the data in OSM more accurately to
distinguish unsactioned tracks. We have a few tags already:

- foot=designated (explicitly signposted or marked as for walkers)
- foot=yes (not explicitly signposted for walkers, but can be used)
- foot=no (signposted as not allowed to walk or physical access blocking)
- informal=yes (created informally, not by an an official body)

This is hard when a track is not signosted, or there are no signposted park
wide rules.

It's tricky because on one hand marking these as informal=yes and then not
rendering informal=yes would cut out a lot of tracks which are informal,
but get a lot of use and generally there no issue with using it, so I still
don't think this is a solved problem.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Brendan Barnes]

Thanks Phil, I appreciate your insights on this.

On the side issue, yes I definitely agree "informal path" track-tracing can
have an effect on human use in the local, often wilderness, environments
where they are recorded. However I have a preference to better tag these
tracks eg abandoned=path or trail_visibility=no etc. Deleting a way on OSM
loses the context of why it should no longer be used - it's just gone. A
good example of this is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635206779 - by
having access=no, removed=yes etc and a clear note on why not to use the
way is useful to mappers, and it doesn't display on the popular renderers.
If the way was deleted, in the future there'd be nothing to stop a
well-intentioned armchair mapper creating a new way based on what they see
on aerial imagery, who doesn't know about the no entry signage surveyed on
the ground.

My question was more about tagging a hiking *route*, not a *track*. I'd
like to produce AAWT route data from OSM. In real life, the AAWT route
passes through Dairymans Creek area and I'd like OSM to convey that as it
does form part of the one long overall AAWT hiking route. Comparing what I
surveyed on the ground (GPS trace, and noting NPWS signage at wilderness
boundary) to the official map (not licenced for use -
https://theaustralianalps.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/map-15.pdf) all
sources do mark the Dairymans Creek segment as forming part of the overall
AAWT *route*.

Perhaps Way 813749214 could be widened to an area covering the width of the
plain? I'm open to ideas. My preference is for "something" to go here so
OSM matches the context of the one overall AAWT hiking route, rather than
"nothing" and leave a gap in the AAWT relation.

Cheers.


On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 19:36, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Personally, as an ex Parks Track Management Officer, I have actively
> removed unformed, off track tracks from OSM. There are frequently
> management plans for such areas where active promotion of the “tracks” is
> discouraged and book authors are also encouraged to not mark the track in
> their guide books.
>
> It’s about ensuring that such off track opportunities are available in the
> future and that there is no “invitation”, and to ensure levels of use that
> prevent major impacts.
>
>
> Cheers - Phil,
> On the road with his iPad
>
> On 21 Oct 2020, at 7:07 pm, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi all,
>
> Hoping for some advice please. There's a few sections of the Australian
> Alps Walking Track official route that are specifically "off track", that
> is, there is no formal hiking path and hikers are requested by the National
> Parks signage at both ends of these wilderness sections to navigate from a
> compass bearing or visible landmark, till the track resumes at the other
> side.
>
> I haven't been able to find a standard for "hiking routes" on OSM or the
> Aussie tagging guidelines .
>
> For one section I tagged Way 813749214
>  as route=hiking and nothing
> else so far, and made it part of the AAWT relation.
>
> Is there a better way to map "off track" hiking routes? Or are there other
> examples of where this occurs?
>
> Thanks,
> ..Brendan
> ___
> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Phil Wyatt]

Personally, as an ex Parks Track Management Officer, I have actively removed 
unformed, off track tracks from OSM. There are frequently management plans for 
such areas where active promotion of the “tracks” is discouraged and book 
authors are also encouraged to not mark the track in their guide books.

It’s about ensuring that such off track opportunities are available in the 
future and that there is no “invitation”, and to ensure levels of use that 
prevent major impacts.


Cheers - Phil, 
On the road with his iPad 

> On 21 Oct 2020, at 7:07 pm, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Hoping for some advice please. There's a few sections of the Australian Alps 
> Walking Track official route that are specifically "off track", that is, 
> there is no formal hiking path and hikers are requested by the National Parks 
> signage at both ends of these wilderness sections to navigate from a compass 
> bearing or visible landmark, till the track resumes at the other side.
> 
> I haven't been able to find a standard for "hiking routes" on OSM or the 
> Aussie tagging guidelines.
> 
> For one section I tagged Way 813749214 as route=hiking and nothing else so 
> far, and made it part of the AAWT relation.
> 
> Is there a better way to map "off track" hiking routes? Or are there other 
> examples of where this occurs?
> 
> Thanks,
> ..Brendan
> ___
> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

Plus on the existing mapped path you can add informal=yes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal to say it's not a formal
path.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 22:11, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Generally I'd just leave a gap in the highway=footway/path where it
> starts/ends, but others might add a path here "tagging for the router" so
> that routing works, but if that's done it must have trail_visibility=no (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility) which says it's
> a pathless path.
>
> However looking at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813749214#map=14/-35.7301/148.5665 it
> does look like there is a path already mapped there, so perhaps we need a
> better way to say the signage says don't use the existing track, instead go
> off track and find your own way, but hard to do when there is a worn path
> already though.
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:07, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hoping for some advice please. There's a few sections of the Australian
>> Alps Walking Track official route that are specifically "off track", that
>> is, there is no formal hiking path and hikers are requested by the National
>> Parks signage at both ends of these wilderness sections to navigate from a
>> compass bearing or visible landmark, till the track resumes at the other
>> side.
>>
>> I haven't been able to find a standard for "hiking routes" on OSM or the
>> Aussie tagging guidelines .
>>
>> For one section I tagged Way 813749214
>>  as route=hiking and
>> nothing else so far, and made it part of the AAWT relation.
>>
>> Is there a better way to map "off track" hiking routes? Or are there
>> other examples of where this occurs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ..Brendan
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andrew Harvey]

Generally I'd just leave a gap in the highway=footway/path where it
starts/ends, but others might add a path here "tagging for the router" so
that routing works, but if that's done it must have trail_visibility=no (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility) which says it's a
pathless path.

However looking at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813749214#map=14/-35.7301/148.5665 it
does look like there is a path already mapped there, so perhaps we need a
better way to say the signage says don't use the existing track, instead go
off track and find your own way, but hard to do when there is a worn path
already though.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:07, Brendan Barnes  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Hoping for some advice please. There's a few sections of the Australian
> Alps Walking Track official route that are specifically "off track", that
> is, there is no formal hiking path and hikers are requested by the National
> Parks signage at both ends of these wilderness sections to navigate from a
> compass bearing or visible landmark, till the track resumes at the other
> side.
>
> I haven't been able to find a standard for "hiking routes" on OSM or the
> Aussie tagging guidelines .
>
> For one section I tagged Way 813749214
>  as route=hiking and nothing
> else so far, and made it part of the AAWT relation.
>
> Is there a better way to map "off track" hiking routes? Or are there other
> examples of where this occurs?
>
> Thanks,
> ..Brendan
> ___
> 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