Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Tony, No objections to the proposed tagging in your email below. Thanks for providing your case for the tagging (and the good photos) and ensuring OSM reflects the world. Stephen. Sent:Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 4:57 PM From:fors...@ozonline.com.au To:stev...@email.com Cc:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject:Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks Thanks Stephen In regards to item 10, the photo that I have referenced is from the intersection of Granite and Abrahams tracks, which is un marked(no sign), only wheel ruts/indents in the grass to indicate the intersection. Yes, I looked there today and I cant see any signs either. If I understood correctly, the access requirements you have described for Ant Track, are better suited to an access=no tag, vs the individual tagging of uses currently applied. (This is in line with the signs on the entry to the park and the description of a formed track from your email below.) That is my 2 cents, not fussed either way, just prefered it to be clear what the access/use requirements are. Yes, I agree, it should be tagged access=no. (This was always my preference, I think the confusion was over what was allowed vs what was enforced. The signage is clear and now I have clear advice from Parks.) I propose that the bicycle=no horse=no tags be removed from Ant Trail and that Ant Trail and the trail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 both be tagged access=no Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Thanks Stephen In regards to item 10, the photo that I have referenced is from the intersection of Granite and Abrahams tracks, which is un marked(no sign), only wheel ruts/indents in the grass to indicate the intersection. Yes, I looked there today and I can't see any signs either. If I understood correctly, the access requirements you have described for Ant Track, are better suited to an access=no tag, vs the individual tagging of uses currently applied. (This is in line with the signs on the entry to the park and the description of a formed track from your email below.) That is my 2 cents, not fussed either way, just prefered it to be clear what the access/use requirements are. Yes, I agree, it should be tagged access=no. (This was always my preference, I think the confusion was over what was allowed vs what was enforced. The signage is clear and now I have clear advice from Parks.) I propose that the bicycle=no horse=no tags be removed from Ant Trail and that Ant Trail and the trail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 both be tagged access=no Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Tony, In regards to item 10, the photo that I have referenced is from the intersection of Granite and Abrahams tracks, which is un marked(no sign), only wheel ruts/indents in the grass to indicate the intersection. If I understood correctly, the access requirements you have described for Ant Track, are better suited to an access=no tag, vs the individual tagging of uses currently applied. (This is in line with the signs on the entry to the park and the description of a formed track from your email below.) That is my 2 cents, not fussed either way, just prefered it to be clear what the access/use requirements are. Stephen. Sent:Monday, August 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM From:fors...@ozonline.com.au To:talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject:Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks Hi all Thanks for the delay while I contacted Parks Vic. Parks Vic have confirmed that Ant Trail is closed to the public for all uses as is the trail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 stev391 proposed that my edit should be reverted as he says: (1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area. (2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated. (3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track, with a recognised name. (4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world. Here are my answers to these and other issues raised: (1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area. Ant trail is 20cm wide and consists of bare earth where bicycle traffic has killed the vegetation. It is not signposted. Conversely all the designated trails are signposted. The photo that stev391 posted in support is of the intersection of Ant Trail and Abrahams Track. Abrahams track is vehicle width and is formed, that is it was created by earthmoving equipment. Ant Trail is neither signed nor formed (no earthworks). See later in this post for more photos of this intersection. There are no designated trails that are less well defined than Ant Trail. (2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated. There is a lot of information that Ant Trail is closed to cyclists without needing to refer to copyright maps. There are signs at all the main entry points stating that only formed and designated trails can be used and that the use of informal trails is not permitted. All the designated trails are signposted. Ant Trail is not formed, signed or designated. (3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track Is it suggested that common use rather than legal status should determine the access tag? There is no credible dispute to the fact that Parks Vic has the authority to close tracks and impose penalties. This is not like Cyprus, Kosovo or Crimea where the legal authority is disputed. We have unambiguous on ground evidence that all informal trails have no legal access. (4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world. Signs at all main entry points to the park specify that trails should be designated and formed and that informal trails should not be used. All the designated tracks are signed. Ant Trail is not formed, designated or signed, it is informal. This is real world indication. (5) If you are not allowed to ride there is a no bikes symbol Yes it does say this. It is obvious that this is badly worded. It is obviously impractical to signpost every informal trail, shortcut and animal track. The no bikes signs are only used on signed and designated walking tracks. Is it suggested that its OK to use informal bush trails up to the point that Parks notices them and puts up a sign? (6) When in doubt, also consider the on the ground rule There is no doubt in this case. Parks Vic is the undisputed responsible authority, this is not disputed territory like Cyprus, Kosovo or Crimea. Parks Vic has declared Ant Trail and other informal trails closed. There is ample evidence on the ground of this. (7) The only formed management trail is the Dargon Track ... Formed means earthworks, eg by a grader, spade or bulldozer but not necessarily graveled. Dargon, Abrahams, Sunset, Lanes tracks all fit this definition. Ant Trail is a worn trail not a formed trail. (8) Both maps on the parks site are out of date and do not show all the signed tracks, let alone the unsigned tracks... Yes the website pdf is dated 2007 and does not show The Aneurism which is a signed and designated bike track. Any unsigned tracks should not be used. The Aneurism is shown on the maps at the Horswood Rd and Hallam North Rd carparks, these signs are a few weeks old. (9) what regulation governs the restriction to ride a bike on an existing trails It is the National Parks Act. It is an offence to use a vehicle in an area not set aside for vehicles. A Bike is included in the definition of vehicle in the National Park Regulations 2013 (10) there is no sign at this intersection of the fire trails I cant view the photo at
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Hi all Thanks for the delay while I contacted Parks Vic. Parks Vic have confirmed that Ant Trail is closed to the public for all uses as is the trail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 stev391 proposed that my edit should be reverted as he says: (1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area. (2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated. (3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track, with a recognised name. (4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world. Here are my answers to these and other issues raised: (1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area. Ant trail is 20cm wide and consists of bare earth where bicycle traffic has killed the vegetation. It is not signposted. Conversely all the designated trails are signposted. The photo that stev391 posted in support is of the intersection of Ant Trail and Abrahams Track. Abrahams track is vehicle width and is formed, that is it was created by earthmoving equipment. Ant Trail is neither signed nor formed (no earthworks). See later in this post for more photos of this intersection. There are no designated trails that are less well defined than Ant Trail. (2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated. There is a lot of information that Ant Trail is closed to cyclists without needing to refer to copyright maps. There are signs at all the main entry points stating that only formed and designated trails can be used and that the use of informal trails is not permitted. All the designated trails are signposted. Ant Trail is not formed, signed or designated. (3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track Is it suggested that common use rather than legal status should determine the access tag? There is no credible dispute to the fact that Parks Vic has the authority to close tracks and impose penalties. This is not like Cyprus, Kosovo or Crimea where the legal authority is disputed. We have unambiguous on ground evidence that all informal trails have no legal access. (4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world. Signs at all main entry points to the park specify that trails should be designated and formed and that informal trails should not be used. All the designated tracks are signed. Ant Trail is not formed, designated or signed, it is informal. This is real world indication. (5) If you are not allowed to ride there is a 'no bikes' symbol Yes it does say this. It is obvious that this is badly worded. It is obviously impractical to signpost every informal trail, shortcut and animal track. The no bikes signs are only used on signed and designated walking tracks. Is it suggested that its OK to use informal bush trails up to the point that Parks notices them and puts up a sign? (6) When in doubt, also consider the on the ground rule There is no doubt in this case. Parks Vic is the undisputed responsible authority, this is not disputed territory like Cyprus, Kosovo or Crimea. Parks Vic has declared Ant Trail and other informal trails closed. There is ample evidence on the ground of this. (7) The only 'formed management trail' is the Dargon Track ... Formed means earthworks, eg by a grader, spade or bulldozer but not necessarily graveled. Dargon, Abrahams, Sunset, Lanes tracks all fit this definition. Ant Trail is a worn trail not a formed trail. (8) Both maps on the parks site are out of date and do not show all the signed tracks, let alone the unsigned tracks... Yes the website pdf is dated 2007 and does not show The Aneurism which is a signed and designated bike track. Any unsigned tracks should not be used. The Aneurism is shown on the maps at the Horswood Rd and Hallam North Rd carparks, these signs are a few weeks old. (9) what regulation governs the restriction to ride a bike on an existing trails It is the National Parks Act. It is an offence to use a vehicle in an area not set aside for vehicles. A Bike is included in the definition of vehicle in the National Park Regulations 2013 (10) there is no sign at this intersection of the fire trails I can't view the photo at this link. Where is it? All the intersections I checked were signposted. I propose that Stev391's proposed reversion be disallowed. Thanks Stev391 and everybody who has contributed to the discussion Tony Some more photos: Signage Churchill entrance https://app.box.com/s/zviqm3j8557nkam003i4ygmfbhqvocd2 https://app.box.com/s/oc7j9ibot7d8v0f8arag53umylo3h9hk https://app.box.com/s/qvvedurt528k2e7dhygyn2p92sgu6qbz Signage Ryans Rd entrance https://app.box.com/s/uh8drkhfkl6nktpq8x92nywnvvcesg1q The next few photos show the difference between the informal, unsigned and unformed Ant Trail and the formed, signed tracks: Designated walking track, (no bikes sign partially obscured by bush)
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
fors...@ozonline.com.au schrieb: Hi What (if any) is the correct tagging for unauthorised trails in national and state parks? For example, Ant Track https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.92599/145.32051 I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official status to park users. I think its hardly possible in OSM. At last: a trail is a trail. May be the Parks itself should add - aside access=no - a new tag for track-sections like surcharge=180 Dollar, bitcoin or else, or neutral surcharge=yes may be with any symbol, on the part of osm. Its more a matter of the Parks than OSM. best, t. I have not yet worked out how to contact the author of Ant Track. Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Hi all I only got to speak briefly with the Head Ranger today. I request a further week delay in the decision on the tagging of Ant Trail. Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Agree with most things you said Stev... But for the copyright map thing. 'We' should not be using copyright maps for anything in OSM. I do use copyright maps .. usually for planning trips ... along with OSM or course. Once the trip is completed I use my trip generated knowledge to add/improve to OSM. This complies with the 'on the ground' guide. And that guide should override other things. Before reverting tonyf1's edit he should be contacted through OSM, this can avoid edit wars, clarify why things are done and lead to better understanding of what to do. On 9/08/2015 9:41 PM, stev...@email.com wrote: Tony, Thanks for firstly raising your proposed edit prior to making the change (and also welcome to the OpenStreetMap community). I had not been to that track in about 6 months, so needed to revisit to see what was on the ground before presenting my argument. Please do not take this as an attack on yourself and I hope that you continue to contribute to the map. I agree with Bryce, it is definitely not bicycle=no as there is nothing in the real world to indicate that this not allowed to be accessed. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle Which states when using 'bicylce=no': Where bicycles are not permitted, ensure this is indicated As you can see in the below referenced photos, there is no indication that this is not permitted. The track is quite well defined and well used, here is some photos of the track: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/yu6LbmrK8FbjT1lPJzJlHw/photo (you might need to scroll out using the scroll wheel if the photo looks too zoomed in) In that sequence of photos you can see the fire access track which is very undefined (just low cut grass, with occassional wheel ruts) and a very clear mtb track. To counter the arguments that it needs to be signed, there is no sign at this intersection of the fire trails, does this mean it is not defined and is not allowed to be accessed? http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/isYcxInLeTHkLFxNArzwkw/photo This track appears to be quite popular according to the Strava segments: https://www.strava.com/segments/5483327 (Southbound) https://www.strava.com/segments/5483306 (Northbound) This also shows that the track has existed in the real world for at least 2 years, being used as a bicycle track. I also refer you to this OSM wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map Which clearly states When in doubt, also consider the on the ground rule: map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there. (Similar wording appears here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes) I propose that user tonyf1's edit should be reverted as: 1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area. 2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated. 3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track, with a recognised name. 4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world. Happy to hear counter positions, based on OSM principles, not what someone (park ranger) said to limit their legal liability. Stephen. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
/MAP/IM/ISYCXINLETHKLFXNARZWKW/PHOTO THIS TRACK APPEARS TO BE QUITE POPULAR ACCORDING TO THE STRAVA SEGMENTS:HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483327 (SOUTHBOUND)HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483306 (NORTHBOUND)THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE TRACK HAS EXISTED IN THE REAL WORLD FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS, BEING USED AS A BICYCLE TRACK. I ALSO REFER YOU TO THIS OSM WIKI PAGE:HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/HOW_WE_MAPWHICH CLEARLY STATES WHEN IN DOUBT, ALSO CONSIDER THE ON THE GROUND RULE: MAP THE WORLD AS IT CAN BE OBSERVED BY SOMEONE PHYSICALLY THERE.(SIMILAR WORDING APPEARS HERE: HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/DISPUTES) I PROPOSE THAT USER TONYF1S EDIT SHOULD BE REVERTED AS:1) THE TRACK IS THERE AND MORE WELL DEFINED THAN OTHER FEATURES IN THE AREA.2) OSM IS A MAP OF WHAT IS IN THE WORLD, NOT WHAT COPYRIGHTED MAPS HAVE STATED.3) THIS IS A COMMONLY USED MOUNTAIN BIKE TRACK, WITH A RECOGNISED NAME.4) BICYCLE=NO REQUIRES THIS TO BE INDICATED IN THE REAL WORLD. HAPPY TO HEAR COUNTER POSITIONS, BASED ON OSM PRINCIPLES, NOT WHAT SOMEONE (PARK RANGER) SAID TO LIMIT THEIR LEGAL LIABILITY. STEPHEN. SENT: Friday, August 07, 2015 at 10:51 AM FROM: Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com TO: fors...@ozonline.com.au CC: talk-au talk-au@openstreetmaptalk-au@openstreetmap.org SUBJECT: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks It physically exists, and therefore I view it as legitimate in OSM. But access=no is not quite the right twist on things.It really belongs to a much larger category of unofficial things: from rope swings to campgrounds to fruit trees,that people build without the permission of the landowner. I often want to know the difference. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmapTalk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au[1] _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmapTalk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmapTalk-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] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
OF WHAT IS IN THE WORLD, NOT WHAT COPYRIGHTED MAPS HAVE STATED.3) THIS IS A COMMONLY USED MOUNTAIN BIKE TRACK, WITH A RECOGNISED NAME.4) BICYCLE=NO REQUIRES THIS TO BE INDICATED IN THE REAL WORLD. HAPPY TO HEAR COUNTER POSITIONS, BASED ON OSM PRINCIPLES, NOT WHAT SOMEONE (PARK RANGER) SAID TO LIMIT THEIR LEGAL LIABILITY. STEPHEN. SENT: Friday, August 07, 2015 at 10:51 AM FROM: Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com TO: fors...@ozonline.com.au CC: talk-au talk-au@openstreetmap.org SUBJECT: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks It physically exists, and therefore I view it as legitimate in OSM. But access=no is not quite the right twist on things.It really belongs to a much larger category of unofficial things: from rope swings to campgrounds to fruit trees,that people build without the permission of the landowner. I often want to know the difference. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au[1] _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
WORLD FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS, BEING USED AS A BICYCLE TRACK. I ALSO REFER YOU TO THIS OSM WIKI PAGE:HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/HOW_WE_MAPWHICH CLEARLY STATES WHEN IN DOUBT, ALSO CONSIDER THE ON THE GROUND RULE: MAP THE WORLD AS IT CAN BE OBSERVED BY SOMEONE PHYSICALLY THERE.(SIMILAR WORDING APPEARS HERE: HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/DISPUTES) I PROPOSE THAT USER TONYF1'S EDIT SHOULD BE REVERTED AS:1) THE TRACK IS THERE AND MORE WELL DEFINED THAN OTHER FEATURES IN THE AREA.2) OSM IS A MAP OF WHAT IS IN THE WORLD, NOT WHAT COPYRIGHTED MAPS HAVE STATED.3) THIS IS A COMMONLY USED MOUNTAIN BIKE TRACK, WITH A RECOGNISED NAME.4) BICYCLE=NO REQUIRES THIS TO BE INDICATED IN THE REAL WORLD. HAPPY TO HEAR COUNTER POSITIONS, BASED ON OSM PRINCIPLES, NOT WHAT SOMEONE (PARK RANGER) SAID TO LIMIT THEIR LEGAL LIABILITY. STEPHEN. SENT: Friday, August 07, 2015 at 10:51 AM FROM: Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com TO: fors...@ozonline.com.au CC: talk-au talk-au@openstreetmaptalk-au@openstreetmap.org SUBJECT: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks It physically exists, and therefore I view it as legitimate in OSM. But access=no is not quite the right twist on things.It really belongs to a much larger category of unofficial things: from rope swings to campgrounds to fruit trees,that people build without the permission of the landowner. I often want to know the difference. _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmapTalk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au[1] ___ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmapTalk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmapTalk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au Links: 1. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf 2. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/315693/Park-note-Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP.pdf ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
THIS TO BE INDICATED IN THE REAL WORLD. HAPPY TO HEAR COUNTER POSITIONS, BASED ON OSM PRINCIPLES, NOT WHAT SOMEONE (PARK RANGER) SAID TO LIMIT THEIR LEGAL LIABILITY. STEPHEN. SENT: Friday, August 07, 2015 at 10:51 AM FROM: Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com TO: fors...@ozonline.com.au CC: talk-au talk-au@openstreetmap.org SUBJECT: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks It physically exists, and therefore I view it as legitimate in OSM. But access=no is not quite the right twist on things.It really belongs to a much larger category of unofficial things: from rope swings to campgrounds to fruit trees,that people build without the permission of the landowner. I often want to know the difference. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au[1] _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning Links: -- [1] 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] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
, ENSURE THIS IS INDICATED QUOT;AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BELOW REFERENCED PHOTOS, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. THE TRACK IS QUITE WELL DEFINED AND WELL USED, HERE IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE TRACK:HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/YU6LBMRK8FBJT1LPJZJLHW/PHOTO(YOU MIGHT NEED TO SCROLL OUT USING THE SCROLL WHEEL IF THE PHOTO LOOKS TOO ZOOMED IN)IN THAT SEQUENCE OF PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE THE FIRE ACCESS TRACK WHICH IS VERY UNDEFINED (JUST LOW CUT GRASS, WITH OCCASSIONAL WHEEL RUTS) AND A VERY CLEAR MTB TRACK. TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, THERE IS NO SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION OF THE FIRE TRAILS, DOES THIS MEAN IT IS NOT DEFINED AND IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED?HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/ISYCXINLETHKLFXNARZWKW/PHOTO THIS TRACK APPEARS TO BE QUITE POPULAR ACCORDING TO THE STRAVA SEGMENTS:HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483327 (SOUTHBOUND)HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483306 (NORTHBOUND)THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE TRACK HAS EXISTED IN THE REAL WORLD FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS, BEING USED AS A BICYCLE TRACK. I ALSO REFER YOU TO THIS OSM WIKI PAGE:HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/HOW_WE_MAPWHICH CLEARLY STATES QUOT;WHEN IN DOUBT, ALSO CONSIDER THE QUOT;ON THE GROUND RULEQUOT;: MAP THE WORLD AS IT CAN BE OBSERVED BY SOMEONE PHYSICALLY THERE.QUOT;(SIMILAR WORDING APPEARS HERE: HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/DISPUTES) I PROPOSE THAT USER TONYF1S EDIT SHOULD BE REVERTED AS:1) THE TRACK IS THERE AND MORE WELL DEFINED THAN OTHER FEATURES IN THE AREA.2) OSM IS A MAP OF WHAT IS IN THE WORLD, NOT WHAT COPYRIGHTED MAPS HAVE STATED.3) THIS IS A COMMONLY USED MOUNTAIN BIKE TRACK, WITH A RECOGNISED NAME.4) BICYCLE=NO REQUIRES THIS TO BE INDICATED IN THE REAL WORLD. HAPPY TO HEAR COUNTER POSITIONS, BASED ON OSM PRINCIPLES, NOT WHAT SOMEONE (PARK RANGER) SAID TO LIMIT THEIR LEGAL LIABILITY. STEPHEN. SENT: Friday, August 07, 2015 at 10:51 AM FROM: Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com TO: fors...@ozonline.com.au CC: talk-au talk-au@openstreetmap.org SUBJECT: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks It physically exists, and therefore I view it as legitimate in OSM. But access=no is not quite the right twist on things.It really belongs to a much larger category of unofficial things: from rope swings to campgrounds to fruit trees,that people build without the permission of the landowner. I often want to know the difference. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au[1] _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning Links: -- [1] 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] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Hi I spoke with the ranger and he said it was OK for walkers to use though this was not my understanding of the regulations, my understanding was that all park users should keep to authorised trails. The ranger suggested that if it is mapped at all it should be tagged walker=yes bicycle=no, we did not discuss horses but I am fairly sure it should be horses=no. Maybe I got the tagging wrong? I am new to this and maybe ID hides some of the subtle tagging features. Please fix it if I have misunderstood something. Tony Hi Tony, Why did you tag like that and how does that apply to the discussions we've had here? I don't think you have tagged it very well. Why haven't you tagged it as walker=no as well? And if it's everyone=no then why didn't you use an access tag like the suggestions posted here? David Thanks Steve91 and all who have contributed to this thread. In the end I changed the access tag to horses no bicycles no but left the name unchanged. I referenced these discussions in the change comment. Tony Hi. I'm user Steve91. I did not put the original track in OSM, the changeset that is referenced is to me improving the accuracy of the upper (eastern) section of the track. The upper section of the track has been in existence for over a year or two. And appears to be well used/good condition. I do not know where the name came from. I only map what is on the ground and the way this track is follows what I know as single track mtb. There is no signs stating no access, this is a formed path. As are many others in the area. Even the official ones aren't signed. I strongly discourage the removal of the track as OSM is a map of the world and not the map of parks vic. If it exists then it can be mapped. I don't mind removal of the name, however the original author might. These are just my views, always happy to consider other views. Steve. -Original message- Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 03:52:28 From: fors...@ozonline.com.au To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks Thanks for the replies The track exists and is mappable. It is not blocked off. Parks Vic prefers light handed regulation so I used mild language to describe the track status. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf actually states: Cyclists are not permitted to create new tracks, ride through bush or ride on tracks other than those designated for Mountain Bike riding. Possibly tag it access=no and rename it to Track closed depending on how widely the name Ant Track is known. It may be known as Ant Track by a very small group of riders. Thanks for the contact info, I didn't want to start an edit war with the author. I will contact them. Tony _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Thanks Steve91 and all who have contributed to this thread. In the end I changed the access tag to horses no bicycles no but left the name unchanged. I referenced these discussions in the change comment. Tony Hi. I'm user Steve91. I did not put the original track in OSM, the changeset that is referenced is to me improving the accuracy of the upper (eastern) section of the track. The upper section of the track has been in existence for over a year or two. And appears to be well used/good condition. I do not know where the name came from. I only map what is on the ground and the way this track is follows what I know as single track mtb. There is no signs stating no access, this is a formed path. As are many others in the area. Even the official ones aren't signed. I strongly discourage the removal of the track as OSM is a map of the world and not the map of parks vic. If it exists then it can be mapped. I don't mind removal of the name, however the original author might. These are just my views, always happy to consider other views. Steve. -Original message- Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 03:52:28 From: fors...@ozonline.com.au To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks Thanks for the replies The track exists and is mappable. It is not blocked off. Parks Vic prefers light handed regulation so I used mild language to describe the track status. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf actually states: Cyclists are not permitted to create new tracks, ride through bush or ride on tracks other than those designated for Mountain Bike riding. Possibly tag it access=no and rename it to Track closed depending on how widely the name Ant Track is known. It may be known as Ant Track by a very small group of riders. Thanks for the contact info, I didn't want to start an edit war with the author. I will contact them. Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Hi. I'm user Steve91. I did not put the original track in OSM, the changeset that is referenced is to me improving the accuracy of the upper (eastern) section of the track. The upper section of the track has been in existence for over a year or two. And appears to be well used/good condition. I do not know where the name came from. I only map what is on the ground and the way this track is follows what I know as single track mtb. There is no signs stating no access, this is a formed path. As are many others in the area. Even the official ones aren't signed. I strongly discourage the removal of the track as OSM is a map of the world and not the map of parks vic. If it exists then it can be mapped. I don't mind removal of the name, however the original author might. These are just my views, always happy to consider other views. Steve. -Original message- Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 03:52:28 From: fors...@ozonline.com.au To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks Thanks for the replies The track exists and is mappable. It is not blocked off. Parks Vic prefers light handed regulation so I used mild language to describe the track status. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf actually states: Cyclists are not permitted to create new tracks, ride through bush or ride on tracks other than those designated for Mountain Bike riding. Possibly tag it access=no and rename it to Track closed depending on how widely the name Ant Track is known. It may be known as Ant Track by a very small group of riders. Thanks for the contact info, I didn't want to start an edit war with the author. I will contact them. Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
On 30/07/2015 10:20 AM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Hi What (if any) is the correct tagging for unauthorised trails in national and state parks? For example, Ant Track https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.92599/145.32051 I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official status to park users. I have not yet worked out how to contact the author of Ant Track. The trail physically exists? Then it is mappable. However .. tag it access=no (or similar) ... If the trail is blocked off so people cannot use it tag disused. The track is Way: Ant Track (289298073) Added extra details to 'tracks' behind birdsland, and the new access bridge to birdsland, from 3 seperate GPS tracks. Edited 10 months ago by steve91 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/steve91 Version #3 · Changeset #25600646 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/25600646 So contact steve through OSM https://www.openstreetmap.org/login?referer=%2Fmessage%2Fnew%2Fsteve91 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
If the path exists then shouldn't it be tagged access=no + foot=yes? From:fors...@ozonline.com.au fors...@ozonline.com.au Date:Thu, 30 Jul, 2015 at 11:53 Subject:Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks Thanks for the replies The track exists and is mappable. It is not blocked off. Parks Vic prefers light handed regulation so I used mild language to describe the track status. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf actually states: Cyclists are not permitted to create new tracks, ride through bush or ride on tracks other than those designated for Mountain Bike riding. Possibly tag it access=no and rename it to Track closed depending on how widely the name Ant Track is known. It may be known as Ant Track by a very small group of riders. Thanks for the contact info, I didn't want to start an edit war with the author. I will contact them. Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
I lean towards mapping what's physically there, so if the trail exists I think it's ok to map it if you want to. If the trail is blocked by a fence/barrier and signage saying keep out etc, then I think access=no would be appropriate as it's facts based on what's physically there. I also default to If in doubt, leave the map as it is. So if someone has mapped something and I'm not really sure of any changes I'm thinking of making are correct, then I leave it alone. Anyway that's just my thoughts. Hi What (if any) is the correct tagging for unauthorised trails in national and state parks? For example, Ant Track https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.92599/145.32051 I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official status to park users. I have not yet worked out how to contact the author of Ant Track. Thanks Tony _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
The access issues get very murchy very quickly. We have a Forestry area that is clearly signposted for bikes to stick to vehicle tracks, however for 10 years or more Forestry has sponsored volunteer mountain bikers to build and maintain trails in this area. Go figure. Parks have a category for some trails called keep but don't promote. ie they are not going to close the trail but they are not going to signpost it either. Maybe the Ant trail is one of these?? We have a council with a trail on an un-made road reserve. This is legal access for walkers and bike riders and possibly motor vehicles, however the trail is littered with no-bikes signs. Contact the council and they confirm it is ok for bikes to use. We have a council with signposted downhill mountain bike trails saying no-walkers, but there is not legal standing for the signage. We have a trail that seems to be randomly ok or not ok for bikes depending on the Ranger. One Ranger says, yep not supposed to ride bikes on that trail, that Ranger moves on and another Ranger takes his place, yep it's fine to ride bikes on that trail. Ranger moves on and another Ranger takes his place, no bikes shouldn't be on that trail DOH! We have trails that local volunteers have made up their own signage to limit use of a trail to their liking, with no authority from anyone, and some of this signage looks very professional. Walkers excluding bike riders, bike riders excluding walkers Good luck putting accurate access info in OSM. lol David Hi We have much the same issue with walking tracks and old surveying/mining roads is Tasmania. Parks has played a very dominating roll with Tasmapi it is actually dangerous as you can be standing on a made road/track and as it does not appear on the map you can get confused and lost. Also had a track appeared on a map a walking group could have walked out using it rather than calling in search and rescue to cross a flooded river. I use a simple rule, if it appears on the ground then it should appear in OSM. I do fully agree that access should be no. Just my thoughts based on lot of ground truthing. Ie getting lost. Cheers Brett Russell On 30 Jul 2015, at 12:09 pm, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: I lean towards mapping what's physically there, so if the trail exists I think it's ok to map it if you want to. If the trail is blocked by a fence/barrier and signage saying keep out etc, then I think access=no would be appropriate as it's facts based on what's physically there. I also default to If in doubt, leave the map as it is. So if someone has mapped something and I'm not really sure of any changes I'm thinking of making are correct, then I leave it alone. Anyway that's just my thoughts. Hi What (if any) is the correct tagging for unauthorised trails in national and state parks? For example, Ant Track https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.92599/145.32051 I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official status to park users. I have not yet worked out how to contact the author of Ant Track. Thanks Tony _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ 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] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Hi We have much the same issue with walking tracks and old surveying/mining roads is Tasmania. Parks has played a very dominating roll with Tasmapi it is actually dangerous as you can be standing on a made road/track and as it does not appear on the map you can get confused and lost. Also had a track appeared on a map a walking group could have walked out using it rather than calling in search and rescue to cross a flooded river. I use a simple rule, if it appears on the ground then it should appear in OSM. I do fully agree that access should be no. Just my thoughts based on lot of ground truthing. Ie getting lost. Cheers Brett Russell On 30 Jul 2015, at 12:09 pm, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: I lean towards mapping what's physically there, so if the trail exists I think it's ok to map it if you want to. If the trail is blocked by a fence/barrier and signage saying keep out etc, then I think access=no would be appropriate as it's facts based on what's physically there. I also default to If in doubt, leave the map as it is. So if someone has mapped something and I'm not really sure of any changes I'm thinking of making are correct, then I leave it alone. Anyway that's just my thoughts. Hi What (if any) is the correct tagging for unauthorised trails in national and state parks? For example, Ant Track https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.92599/145.32051 I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official status to park users. I have not yet worked out how to contact the author of Ant Track. Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ 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] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
On 30 July 2015 at 11:52, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: The track exists and is mappable. It is not blocked off. Parks Vic prefers light handed regulation so I used mild language to describe the track status. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf actually states: Cyclists are not permitted to create new tracks, ride through bush or ride on tracks other than those designated for Mountain Bike riding. Possibly tag it access=no and rename it to Track closed depending on how widely the name Ant Track is known. It may be known as Ant Track by a very small group of riders. Is it mode specific? See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions Also perhaps access=discouraged would be better? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Values So perhaps bicycle=discouraged? Don't name it Track closed, that's not a name, that's a description or note http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
On 7/29/2015 6:52 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Possibly tag it access=no and rename it to Track closed depending on how widely the name Ant Track is known. It may be known as Ant Track by a very small group of riders. The name might not be Ant Track, but it's almost certainly not Track closed. The name tag is for names. access=no already indicates that it is closed (or more precisely that you aren't allowed to access it). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
On 30 July 2015 at 10:20, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official status to park users. Would they just 'prefer' it. Or is there actually a regulation preventing their use? We have ways to tag to indicate there is no legal access to bikes. However, I'm not sure how we would tag to indicate someone's preference for things not being used. There is a tag value of official and designated, but someone has tied themselves in knots with this stuff, and I doubt it would be effective here. As another (somewhat related) example, the Parks often don't map Aboriginal sites and drawing on their maps - only the 'official' ones where there are fences, etc. In the past I've chosen not to map these sites, but I've no idea what I would do if I saw someone else had mapped them. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
