Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Francois Gerin]

Thanks to Pieter for the link https://www.openhistoricalmap.org
=> It deserves more visibility/publicity I think, so as to improve the 
cleaning of the main OSM DB...


I'm contributing a lot to balnam too. I make use of it a lot, exactly to 
ensure or recover missing paths.

Most of the time (80-90%), balnam does the job well and quickly.
For the rest, I personally contact the local public authority. In the 
past, it was not efficient at all and quite discouraging... But now that 
slow/sweet mobility is more and more a public topic, I noticed that many 
local authorities changed their mind and quickly take actions when I 
warn them about some issue.
=> Just got several good results in Andenne (usually never responding) 
and Fernelmont (depending on the contact person).


My reactions to the user's comments:

*Comment 1*: Not valid, they try what they can, but they have nothing. 
The trick is just a question of communication and the way to address the 
point. Just got a serious case again on path 73 in Sclayn 
, but it's the last one of a 
long series, which allowed me to refine my approach.
=> Balnam is definitely the way to go, they indeed use also various 
maps, including federal ones that are no more accessible to us. Also, 
the local authorities have access to these maps, we still made use of 
them in Andenne in July.


*Comment 2*: The IGN failure is a distinct story. Sad for them, but not 
related to the topic. There are regulations, local authorities have to 
comply to them. I never and will probably never make use of IGN anymore, 
they're "dead" because they did not adapt to the modern reality. Even 
the military guys I met in the woods of Marche-les-Dames use OSM, more 
up to date...
Again, nowadays local authorities eventually comply and react, much more 
than a few years ago. The best is to make use of this!


*Comment 3*: The user points himself exactly to balnam... Red lines are 
very visible, much more than a simple OSM map, and make a good support 
for the discussion with local authorities. Just for the demo, look at 
all the paths that were suppressed in the area of Groyenne 
. The balnam layer makes it 
very clear...


The main point is that balnam is based on volunteers, it's not an 
official service. But here again, due to the recent changes I'm quite 
convinced that things are evolving in the good direction: more and more 
people use balnam, more and more local authorities face discussions on 
this, more and more people contribute to surveillance... The recent 
results I got were not possible a few years ago, now they are. At some 
point, there will be a public service to take over balnam... That's a 
good way to force a reaction. Once enough people are aware, public 
figures take care of the topic, and here it's very positive.


=> If the user wishes, he can contact me: fgerin on OSM, fge1 on balnam.

++
F


On 7/08/20 13:50, Matthieu wrote:

Thanks for these clarifications.

The user agreed to revert, not without explaining why he still 
believes that the ways should be mapped. I quote him below for the 
completeness. I advised him to use balsam (ironically he *IS* a balnam 
volunteer !), will refer it to OHM too.


Le premier réflexe qu'a un accapareur lorsqu'il est confronté à des 
autorités communales est le plus souvent d'indiquer que la voirie 
n'existe même pas sur carte, le deuxième sera de dire qu'elle n'est 
pas visible sur les photos aériennes.
Bref, je crois qu'on est pas du tout sur la même longueur d'onde et 
je le regrette.


Pour la petite histoire, un nombre important de voiries ont disparu 
_*suite*_ au fait qu'elles n'étaient plus reprises sur l'IGN (souvent 
par négligence des géographes de terrain)
La voirie que vous voulez pouvoir utiliser sans que le propriétaire 
du manège ne vous interpelle est un voirie innomée sans véritable 
statut tant qu'elle n'a pas été reconnue comme communale par la 
commune (procédure longue et difficile, actuellement rarement mise en 
oeuvre). C'est une voirie privée.


Pour tenter de la rendre communale, la méthode la plus 
souvent utilisée est d'indiquer au riverain toutes les voiries qui 
ont disparues (qu'il a volé), cette disposition permet de 
"culpabiliser" l'accapareur qui, bien souvent, accepte par la suite 
certaines concessions.


*Je m'incline et j'enlève d'OSM les voiries publiques accaparées 
autour des Hayettes.*




Matthieu

On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:44, Pieter Vander Vennet > wrote:


Hey everyone,

Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on 
OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .


The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work 
together with Balnam.be  (in Wallonia) or Trage 
Wegen VZW (for Flanders). They have this kind of experience and they 
know which historical sources to use (such as the 'atlas trage 
buurtwegen' and a 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey everyone,

Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on
OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .

The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work together
with Balnam.be (in Wallonia) or Trage Wegen VZW (for Flanders). They
have this kind of experience and they know which historical sources to
use (such as the 'atlas trage buurtwegen' and a whole heap of different
maps).

Even though I sympathise deeply with the contributor, OSM is not a place
for razed paths - it clutters the database too much and it becomes very
unclear what is in scope for OSM. Do we map razed buildings too? When do
we delete them? When they are razed 5yrs ago? 10yrs ago? 100yrs  ago?
Again, all these /are/ welcome in OpenHistoricalMap, where there is some
support by giving end-dates.

To touch on the topic of Wegspotter - he too mapped a lot of razed roads
which frustrated many within the community. Due to some stupid techical
issue, it took a long time before the community could get in touch with
him. Once we finally got in touch, we could synchronize and align.

Kind regards, Pieter

On 07.08.20 08:53, joost schouppe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths
> somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous
> discussions that there is some consensus that paths that are really,
> really gone (there's a building on top; or there's a lot of fences or
> overgrowth; it doesn't re-appear from time to time) do not belong in
> OSM at all. Then again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to
> clean them out of the database.
>
> When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual
> highway type, then they should be stopped.
>
> Mathieu,
> You say "He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those
> paths was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a
> discussion about the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths
> for the general public. He promised to delete the date once the case
> will be closed."
> I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in
> private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some
> other people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still
> change their mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes.
>
> Best,
> Joost
>
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet
> mailto:matth...@gaillet.be>>:
>
> Good point. 
>
> A search led me to this
> discussion 
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
>  which
> emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes. 
>
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>
>
>
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie > > a écrit :
>>
>>  Hello,
>>
>> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist
>> anymore. I didn't want to delete his work complete and
>> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left
>> name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the
>> usual map
>> but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special
>> historic map.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Erik
>>
>>
>> Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have
>>> deleted some bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as
>>> fixme:highway for now. The user also didn't snap roads to the
>>> rest of the road network properly.
>>> If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a
>>> user block. A convincing argument for them to do the work
>>> properly could be that we might be forced to just revert all
>>> their work.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Joost
>>>
>>> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck
>>> mailto:wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the
>>> aims of the mapper. I also have been working with
>>> communities to keep vicinal ways open. I am also aware that
>>> certain ways are only accessible certain times of the year
>>> due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the
>>> moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the
>>> year. In general I advocate leaving paths through fields
>>> (even plowed) that are legal rights of way. My reasoning is
>>> that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind of path
>>> will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of
>>> way crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense
>>> to put those in OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the
>>> changesets that you linked to. I didn't like what I saw.
>>> People who want to 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Matthieu]

Thanks for these clarifications.

The user agreed to revert, not without explaining why he still believes that 
the ways should be mapped. I quote him below for the completeness. I advised 
him to use balsam (ironically he *IS* a balnam volunteer !), will refer it to 
OHM too.

> Le premier réflexe qu'a un accapareur lorsqu'il est confronté à des autorités 
> communales est le plus souvent d'indiquer que la voirie n'existe même pas sur 
> carte, le deuxième sera de dire qu'elle n'est pas visible sur les photos 
> aériennes.
> Bref, je crois qu'on est pas du tout sur la même longueur d'onde et je le 
> regrette.

> Pour la petite histoire, un nombre important de voiries ont disparu suite au 
> fait qu'elles n'étaient plus reprises sur l'IGN (souvent par négligence des 
> géographes de terrain) 
> La voirie que vous voulez pouvoir utiliser sans que le propriétaire du manège 
> ne vous interpelle est un voirie innomée sans véritable statut tant qu'elle 
> n'a pas été reconnue comme communale par la commune (procédure longue et 
> difficile, actuellement rarement mise en oeuvre). C'est une voirie privée.

> Pour tenter de la rendre communale, la méthode la plus souvent utilisée est 
> d'indiquer au riverain toutes les voiries qui ont disparues (qu'il a volé), 
> cette disposition permet de "culpabiliser" l'accapareur qui, bien souvent, 
> accepte par la suite certaines concessions.

> Je m'incline et j'enlève d'OSM les voiries publiques accaparées autour des 
> Hayettes.
> 

Matthieu

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:44, Pieter Vander Vennet  wrote:
> 
> Hey everyone,
> 
> Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on 
> OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ 
>  . 
> 
> The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work together with 
> Balnam.be (in Wallonia) or Trage Wegen VZW (for   Flanders). They have 
> this kind of experience and they know which historical sources to use (such 
> as the 'atlas trage buurtwegen' and a whole heap of different maps).
> 
> Even though I sympathise deeply with the contributor, OSM is not a place for 
> razed paths - it clutters the database too much and it becomes very unclear 
> what is in scope for OSM. Do we map razed buildings too? When do we delete 
> them? When they are razed 5yrs ago? 10yrs ago? 100yrs  ago? Again, all these 
> are welcome in OpenHistoricalMap, where there is some support by giving 
> end-dates.
> 
> To touch on the topic of Wegspotter - he too mapped a lot of razed roads 
> which frustrated many within the community. Due to some stupid techical 
> issue, it took a long time before the community could get in touch with him. 
> Once we finally got in touch, we could synchronize and align.
> 
> Kind regards, Pieter
> 
> On 07.08.20 08:53, joost schouppe wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths 
>> somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous discussions 
>> that there is some consensus that paths that are really, really gone 
>> (there's a building on top; or there's a lot of fences or overgrowth; it 
>> doesn't re-appear from time to time) do not belong in OSM at all. Then 
>> again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of the 
>> database.
>> 
>> When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual highway 
>> type, then they should be stopped.
>> 
>> Mathieu,
>> You say "He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths 
>> was a way to put pressure on the Commune   and the owner in a 
>> discussion about the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the 
>> general public. He promised to delete the date once the case will be closed."
>> I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in 
>> private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some other 
>> people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still change their 
>> mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Joost
>> 
>> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet > >:
>> Good point. 
>> 
>> A search led me to this discussion 
>> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
>>  
>> 
>>  which emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes. 
>> 
>> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>>> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie mailto:ebe...@gmail.com>> 
>>> a écrit :
>>> 
>>>  Hello,
>>> 
>>> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist anymore. 
>>> I didn't want to delete his work complete and 
>>> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left 
>>> name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
>>> but it is visible in an editor 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Matthieu Gaillet]

First of all : thanks all for sharing your thoughts and insight. I learned a 
lot. I believe that this case, which as I discovered was already discussed 
should be clarified and documented on the wiki, but that’s another story.

> 
> While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths 
> somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous discussions that 
> there is some consensus that paths that are really, really gone (there's a 
> building on top; or there's a lot of fences or overgrowth; it doesn't 
> re-appear from time to time) do not belong in OSM at all.

That’s also my understanding : generally speaking ghost or historic 
(disappeared) objects don’t belong to OSM. The only exception I’m aware of are 
old (removed) railways that can be mapped but it makes sense since the space 
used by that railway is generally still visible.

> Then again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of 
> the database.

I do. Each time I encounter a not existent path I contact the contributor and 
generally end up deleting it.

> You say "He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths 
> was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a discussion about 
> the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the general public. 
> He promised to delete the date once the case will be closed."
> I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in 
> private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some other 
> people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still change their 
> mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes.

Yes, I contacted him privately. I kindly explained him (twice) that the 
community was largely against such kind of (poor) mapping and that he had to 
revert. I offered him help for his future edits (he’s novice as far as I can 
tell). I’m waiting for his answer. I believe there is not much more time to 
spend on this case which is pretty straightforward.

Matthieu

> 
> Best,
> Joost
> 
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet  >:
> Good point. 
> 
> A search led me to this discussion 
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
>  
> 
>  which emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes. 
> 
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
> 
> 
> 
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie mailto:ebe...@gmail.com>> a 
>> écrit :
>> 
>>  Hello,
>> 
>> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist anymore. I 
>> didn't want to delete his work complete and 
>> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left name=Voetweg 
>> SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
>> but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Erik
>> 
>> 
>> Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted some 
>>> bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now. The user 
>>> also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly. 
>>> If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user block. 
>>> A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be that we 
>>> might be forced to just revert all their work.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Joost
>>> 
>>> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck 
>>> mailto:wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>>:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims of the 
>>> mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep vicinal ways 
>>> open. I am also aware that certain ways are only accessible certain times 
>>> of the year due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the 
>>> moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the year. In general I 
>>> advocate leaving paths through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights 
>>> of way. My reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind 
>>> of path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way 
>>> crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put those in 
>>> OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>>> 
>>> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets that you 
>>> linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to check only one 
>>> example, this is a good one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389 
>>>  There is no place in OSM for 
>>> that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing the situation on the ground, 
>>> it is clear to me that nobody will try to follow that track. So I would say 
>>> to revert changes like that.
>>> 
>>> As for the arguments of the mapper:
>>> * Putting something in OSM does not put any 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths
somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous discussions
that there is some consensus that paths that are really, really gone
(there's a building on top; or there's a lot of fences or overgrowth; it
doesn't re-appear from time to time) do not belong in OSM at all. Then
again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of the
database.

When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual highway
type, then they should be stopped.

Mathieu,
You say "He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those
paths was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a
discussion about the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for
the general public. He promised to delete the date once the case will be
closed."
I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in
private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some other
people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still change their
mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes.

Best,
Joost

Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet :

> Good point.
>
> A search led me to this discussion
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
>  which
> emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes.
>
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>
>
>
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>
> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie  a écrit :
>
>  Hello,
>
> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist anymore.
> I didn't want to delete his work complete and
> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left
> name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
> but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
>
> Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
>
> Hi,
>
> The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted some
> bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now. The user
> also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly.
> If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user block.
> A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be that we
> might be forced to just revert all their work.
>
> Best,
> Joost
>
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck <
> wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims of the
>> mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep vicinal ways
>> open. I am also aware that certain ways are only accessible certain times
>> of the year due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the
>> moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the year. In general I
>> advocate leaving paths through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights
>> of way. My reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind
>> of path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way
>> crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put those in
>> OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>>
>> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets that you
>> linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to check only one
>> example, this is a good one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389
>> There is no place in OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing
>> the situation on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to
>> follow that track. So I would say to revert changes like that.
>>
>> As for the arguments of the mapper:
>> * Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner. Nobody
>> will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way open because I
>> just put it on a website where everybody can put things".
>> * It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on a daily
>> basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions in OSM makes it
>> useless for them. They don't care where they should be able to pass in
>> theory. They want to know where they can pass in reality.
>>
>> In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious advantage
>> for his personal use and by doing that makes the data useless for all other
>> users. For me it is clear that those ways should be removed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wouter
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or "vicinal”
>>> ways. By disappeared I mean they are physically absolutely not existent on
>>> the ground. They were either plowed or constructions were built right on
>>> them.
>>>
>>> I believe it goes against the general rule that states that one might
>>> only map what’s visible on the field. Additionally the mapping itself was
>>> poorly done and the source mentioned was not 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Matthieu Gaillet]

Good point. 

A search led me to this discussion 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
 which emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes. 

Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)



Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie  a écrit :
>  Hello,
> 
> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist anymore. I 
> didn't want to delete his work complete and 
> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left name=Voetweg 
> SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
> but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik
> 
> 
> Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted some 
>> bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now. The user 
>> also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly. 
>> If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user block. A 
>> convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be that we might 
>> be forced to just revert all their work.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Joost
>> 
>> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck 
>> :
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims of the 
>>> mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep vicinal ways 
>>> open. I am also aware that certain ways are only accessible certain times 
>>> of the year due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the 
>>> moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the year. In general I 
>>> advocate leaving paths through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights 
>>> of way. My reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind 
>>> of path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way 
>>> crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put those in 
>>> OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>>> 
>>> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets that you 
>>> linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to check only one 
>>> example, this is a good one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389 
>>> There is no place in OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing 
>>> the situation on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to 
>>> follow that track. So I would say to revert changes like that.
>>> 
>>> As for the arguments of the mapper:
>>> * Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner. Nobody 
>>> will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way open because I 
>>> just put it on a website where everybody can put things".
>>> * It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on a daily 
>>> basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions in OSM makes it 
>>> useless for them. They don't care where they should be able to pass in 
>>> theory. They want to know where they can pass in reality.
>>> 
>>> In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious advantage for 
>>> his personal use and by doing that makes the data useless for all other 
>>> users. For me it is clear that those ways should be removed.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Wouter
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet  wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or "vicinal” ways. 
 By disappeared I mean they are physically absolutely not existent on the 
 ground. They were either plowed or constructions were built right on them.
 
 I believe it goes against the general rule that states that one might only 
 map what’s visible on the field. Additionally the mapping itself was 
 poorly done and the source mentioned was not relevant.
 
 Using the tag [trail]_visibility=no is not an option here since the user 
 decided to map a unmaintained track road (with width = 4m !) that doesn’t 
 offer such option.
 
 He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths was a 
 way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a discussion about the 
 openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the general public. He 
 promised to delete the date once the case will be closed.
 
> Les sentiers et chemins que j'ai repris sur OSM sont légalement toujours 
> existants et personne n'est en droit d'empêcher quiconque de les 
> utiliser, de les réhabiliter ou de les débroussailler... c'est une façon 
> de mettre la pression sur le riverain... dès que des alternatives auront 
> été créées et un bon accord conclu, j'effacerai les données au profit des 
> alternatives qui auront été proposées.
 
 The changesets : 
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927383
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825
 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[EeBie]

Hello,

In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist 
anymore. I didn't want to delete his work complete and
deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left 
name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map

but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map.

Regards,

Erik


Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:

Hi,

The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted 
some bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now. 
The user also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly.
If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user 
block. A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be 
that we might be forced to just revert all their work.


Best,
Joost

Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck 
mailto:wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>>:


Hi,

Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims
of the mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep
vicinal ways open. I am also aware that certain ways are only
accessible certain times of the year due to vegetation etc. Even
if a path is not visible at the moment you pass there, it might be
at other times of the year. In general I advocate leaving paths
through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights of way. My
reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind of
path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way
crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put
those in OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.

With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets
that you linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to
check only one example, this is a good one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389 There is no place in
OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing the situation
on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to follow
that track. So I would say to revert changes like that.

As for the arguments of the mapper:
* Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner.
Nobody will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way
open because I just put it on a website where everybody can put
things".
* It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on
a daily basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions
in OSM makes it useless for them. They don't care where they
should be able to pass in theory. They want to know where they can
pass in reality.

In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious
advantage for his personal use and by doing that makes the data
useless for all other users. For me it is clear that those ways
should be removed.

Regards,
Wouter

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet
mailto:matth...@gaillet.be>> wrote:

Hi,

Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or
"vicinal” ways. By disappeared I mean they are physically
absolutely not existent on the ground. They were either plowed
or constructions were built right on them.

I believe it goes against the general rule that states that
one might only map what’s visible on the field. Additionally
the mapping itself was poorly done and the source mentioned
was not relevant.

Using the tag [

trail]_visibility
=no


 is
not an option here since the user decided to map a
unmaintained track road (with width = 4m !) that doesn’t offer
such option.

He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those
paths was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner
in a discussion about the openness and accessibility of
surrounding paths for the general public. He promised to
delete the date once the case will be closed.


Les sentiers et chemins que j'ai repris sur OSM sont
légalement toujours existants et personne n'est en droit
d'empêcher quiconque de les utiliser, de les réhabiliter ou
de les débroussailler... c'est une façon de mettre la
pression sur le riverain... dès que des alternatives auront
été créées et un bon accord conclu, j'effacerai les données
au profit des alternatives qui auront été proposées.


The changesets :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927383
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted some
bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now. The user
also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly.
If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user block.
A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be that we
might be forced to just revert all their work.

Best,
Joost

Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck <
wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims of the
> mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep vicinal ways
> open. I am also aware that certain ways are only accessible certain times
> of the year due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the
> moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the year. In general I
> advocate leaving paths through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights
> of way. My reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind
> of path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way
> crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put those in
> OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>
> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets that you
> linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to check only one
> example, this is a good one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389
> There is no place in OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing
> the situation on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to
> follow that track. So I would say to revert changes like that.
>
> As for the arguments of the mapper:
> * Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner. Nobody
> will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way open because I
> just put it on a website where everybody can put things".
> * It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on a daily
> basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions in OSM makes it
> useless for them. They don't care where they should be able to pass in
> theory. They want to know where they can pass in reality.
>
> In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious advantage
> for his personal use and by doing that makes the data useless for all other
> users. For me it is clear that those ways should be removed.
>
> Regards,
> Wouter
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or "vicinal”
>> ways. By disappeared I mean they are physically absolutely not existent on
>> the ground. They were either plowed or constructions were built right on
>> them.
>>
>> I believe it goes against the general rule that states that one might
>> only map what’s visible on the field. Additionally the mapping itself was
>> poorly done and the source mentioned was not relevant.
>>
>> Using the tag [
>> 
>> trail]_visibility
>> =no
>> 
>>  is
>> not an option here since the user decided to map a unmaintained track road
>> (with width = 4m !) that doesn’t offer such option.
>>
>> He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths was a
>> way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a discussion about the
>> openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the general public. He
>> promised to delete the date once the case will be closed.
>>
>> Les sentiers et chemins que j'ai repris sur OSM sont légalement toujours
>> existants et personne n'est en droit d'empêcher quiconque de les utiliser,
>> de les réhabiliter ou de les débroussailler... c'est une façon de mettre la
>> pression sur le riverain... dès que des alternatives auront été créées et
>> un bon accord conclu, j'effacerai les données au profit des alternatives
>> qui auront été proposées.
>>
>>
>> The changesets :
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927383
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566
>>
>>
>> What do you think ? I believe that’s not a good way of doing things (I
>> don’t believe in maptivism in this situation) but can’t really find a clear
>> position of the community about this particular case.
>>
>> I don’t want to start a fight with that user because he’s really doing a
>> great job at preserving the right of use of those heritage vicinal ways by
>> confronting the Communes against those unfair owners. I would like to show
>> him some string arguments to explain him why his initiative is not good for
>> the community (If that’s the case).
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
>> Matthieu Gaillet
>>
>> ___
>> 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Wouter Hamelinck]

Hi,

Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims of the
mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep vicinal ways
open. I am also aware that certain ways are only accessible certain times
of the year due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the
moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the year. In general I
advocate leaving paths through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights
of way. My reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind
of path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way
crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put those in
OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.

With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets that you
linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to check only one
example, this is a good one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389
There is no place in OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing
the situation on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to
follow that track. So I would say to revert changes like that.

As for the arguments of the mapper:
* Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner. Nobody
will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way open because I
just put it on a website where everybody can put things".
* It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on a daily
basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions in OSM makes it
useless for them. They don't care where they should be able to pass in
theory. They want to know where they can pass in reality.

In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious advantage for
his personal use and by doing that makes the data useless for all other
users. For me it is clear that those ways should be removed.

Regards,
Wouter

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or "vicinal” ways.
> By disappeared I mean they are physically absolutely not existent on the
> ground. They were either plowed or constructions were built right on them.
>
> I believe it goes against the general rule that states that one might only
> map what’s visible on the field. Additionally the mapping itself was poorly
> done and the source mentioned was not relevant.
>
> Using the tag [ 
> trail]_visibility
> =no
> 
>  is
> not an option here since the user decided to map a unmaintained track road
> (with width = 4m !) that doesn’t offer such option.
>
> He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths was a
> way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a discussion about the
> openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the general public. He
> promised to delete the date once the case will be closed.
>
> Les sentiers et chemins que j'ai repris sur OSM sont légalement toujours
> existants et personne n'est en droit d'empêcher quiconque de les utiliser,
> de les réhabiliter ou de les débroussailler... c'est une façon de mettre la
> pression sur le riverain... dès que des alternatives auront été créées et
> un bon accord conclu, j'effacerai les données au profit des alternatives
> qui auront été proposées.
>
>
> The changesets :
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927383
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566
>
>
> What do you think ? I believe that’s not a good way of doing things (I
> don’t believe in maptivism in this situation) but can’t really find a clear
> position of the community about this particular case.
>
> I don’t want to start a fight with that user because he’s really doing a
> great job at preserving the right of use of those heritage vicinal ways by
> confronting the Communes against those unfair owners. I would like to show
> him some string arguments to explain him why his initiative is not good for
> the community (If that’s the case).
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> Matthieu Gaillet
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>


-- 
"Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
   - Thor Heyerdahl
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Francois Gerin]

Hi,

I faced the same situation here. I sent the author a kind message, 
telling this fight, even if fully justified, is not to lead via OSM but 
via balnam.be (for the Wallonia part).


I got no reply, but pointing to an alternative for this justified cause 
is probably something that can help the destinator to think twice about it.


For the rest, I'm afraid if someone insists misusing OSM, the only 
alternative is to open a litigation...



NOTE: A few months ago, I sent a message on the current mailing for a 
specific/particular case... Ways covered by cultures for a few months 
every year, due to the farmers who do not respect the public area.
The conclusion was that there is clearly no ideal solution for that 
case, we cannot update every path every day! => According to me, this is 
an exception, based on the "common sense", to the general rule "map what 
is visible". (The exception "common sens" is also part of the OSM rules!!!)

This exception is acceptable, according to me, due to its particularity.

Regards,
François (user fgerin)


On 6/08/20 08:20, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:

Hi,

Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or "vicinal” 
ways. By disappeared I mean they are physically absolutely not 
existent on the ground. They were either plowed or constructions were 
built right on them.


I believe it goes against the general rule that states that one might 
only map what’s visible on the field. Additionally the mapping itself 
was poorly done and the source mentioned was not relevant.


Using the tag [ 
trail]_visibility 
=no 
 is 
not an option here since the user decided to map a unmaintained track 
road (with width = 4m !) that doesn’t offer such option.


He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths 
was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a discussion 
about the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the 
general public. He promised to delete the date once the case will be 
closed.


Les sentiers et chemins que j'ai repris sur OSM sont légalement 
toujours existants et personne n'est en droit d'empêcher quiconque de 
les utiliser, de les réhabiliter ou de les débroussailler... c'est 
une façon de mettre la pression sur le riverain... dès que des 
alternatives auront été créées et un bon accord conclu, j'effacerai 
les données au profit des alternatives qui auront été proposées.


The changesets :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927383
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566


What do you think ? I believe that’s not a good way of doing things (I 
don’t believe in maptivism in this situation) but can’t really find a 
clear position of the community about this particular case.


I don’t want to start a fight with that user because he’s really doing 
a great job at preserving the right of use of those heritage vicinal 
ways by confronting the Communes against those unfair owners. I would 
like to show him some string arguments to explain him why his 
initiative is not good for the community (If that’s the case).


Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Matthieu Gaillet


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