Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[stevea]

On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg  wrote:
> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to 
> be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to 
> be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This seems 
> like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark it as 
> tourism. People will find it if they want to, whatever OSM tags it as, so it 
> doesn't seem necessary to participate/encourage in whatever degree of 
> illegality the access entails.

And here is where some disagree:  OSM does not "encourage."  OSM is data.  It 
simply says "this is" and "these are."  OSM does not encourage people (in any 
way) to visit a site or trespass.  It is a collection of data (of "what is") 
expressed as a map.  Full stop.

Sometimes, "sites" or "roads" are marked as "private" or "permissive" or "no 
access."  What people do from there did not happen because I, you, she, he, 
they or ANYBODY entered data into a map.  Period.

If a sign says "No Trespassing" yet it is ignored, who is responsible?  A map?  
No, the trespasser.  (And yes, to the greatest extent possible, OSM wants to 
not only tag such data where known, but express these access restrictions in 
renderings, as well.  OSM has been doing this for years, quite well in my 
opinion).

I don't believe OSM "sets precedents" as Brian describes, as OSM doesn't 
"encourage."  Two facts:  1), tourists DO visit this site and 2), OSM uses the 
tourism key to denote viewpoints (and the view IS spectacular).  I have no 
problem with "tourism=viewpoint" here, though apparently Brian disagrees.  OK.  
I'm glad the thread includes the word "Opinions!"  (Thank you, Frederik).

I don't mean to sound argumentative or antagonistic, but if someone more 
clearly draws a line between "entered map data" and "encouraged people (in any 
way) to do anything illegal," I'd like to follow that line.  However, nobody 
has been able to do that (yet).

I believe "the correct" access tagging (on the path, for example) will go a 
long distance here.  Both access=no and access=private mean the same thing to 
me as a "No Trespassing" sign when I see them rendered in Carto, for example.

Some final notes in the realm of "legal" (I am not an attorney):  there is 
something in California called Civil Code 1008 which expresses a method to 
legally prevent easements from being created on private property.  One can 
create an easement by simply "using" (traversing, for example) said private 
property in a notorious manner for some number of years.  To prevent this, the 
owner must post a sign reading "Right to pass by permission and subject to 
control of owner:  Civil Code Section 1008."  However, that's not what the sign 
says (which Frederik posted and I have seen personally).  Speculating, I'd 
guess this sign was placed there by local search and rescue personnel (might be 
fire / paramedics) who don't wish to be burdened with rescues (or worse) at the 
same place for the same reason — and the local ordinance cited (San Mateo 
County Ordinance No. 1462) makes that actual law.  With all this, I believe 
access=no is a correct tag (on the path, would be my first inclination).

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

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Brian Stromberg]

I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to
be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to
be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This seems
like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark it as
tourism. People will find it if they want to, whatever OSM tags it as, so
it doesn't seem necessary to participate/encourage in whatever degree of
illegality the access entails.

--
Brian


On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:55 PM stevea  wrote:

> Joseph asks good, relevant questions regarding whether the access tag
> should be private vs. no.  But, yes, I agree Frederik, there absolutely
> should be one of these two tags with that sign you displayed.  (I've seen
> it many times driving past here before the tunnel was built, it's a bit
> more out-of-the-way now).  And if it was historically a bunker, OSM should
> strive to tag this, I'm not exactly sure of the right mix of
> military=bunker and historic=yes flavors that might be absolutely correct,
> but something like those if not exactly those.  Though historic=ruins seems
> correct, too, so perhaps better than "yes."
>
> I slightly disagree with Frederik about a viewpoint necessarily being
> signposted or "called a viewpoint."  I've tagged tourism=viewpoint on many
> such places, where they are absolutely a viewpoint in my opinion (and I've
> hiked a LOT) but are neither so noted via signpost on site, nor on a map.
> Many that I have so entered into OSM have a bench nearby (and so I'll tag
> amenity=bench on a node, too) so I'm not the only one who thinks the spot
> has a nice view worthy of a short sit and "take it all in."  I mean, hiking
> trails and viewpoints go together like peas and carrots, otherwise, what's
> the point?  (Exercise, sure — but, but the VIEWS!)  What I'm saying is that
> I believe it's OK for an OSM mapper who enters a tourism=viewpoint tag to
> say "I'm asserting this to be a bona fide viewpoint here."  Of course, if
> it is signed, benched or otherwise mapped or widely acknowledged as a
> viewpoint, all the better.
>
> I tire of self-declared "concerned citizens" who think they should tell us
> mappers what is in the world and how to tag it.  What must be immediately
> dispensed with is that "maps make people do things."  (Hike closed trails,
> trespass...)  Nonsense:  maps show the world as it is (to the extent they
> can).  PEOPLE do things with maps.  When you start there, all the right
> things to do follow.  Let's get an access tag here, tune up "historic" and
> let the renderers do their magic.  (As usual, but it's a good question,
> thank you for that familiar sign and I'm glad there is such lively
> participation in suggestions).
>
> SteveA
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[stevea]

Joseph asks good, relevant questions regarding whether the access tag should be 
private vs. no.  But, yes, I agree Frederik, there absolutely should be one of 
these two tags with that sign you displayed.  (I've seen it many times driving 
past here before the tunnel was built, it's a bit more out-of-the-way now).  
And if it was historically a bunker, OSM should strive to tag this, I'm not 
exactly sure of the right mix of military=bunker and historic=yes flavors that 
might be absolutely correct, but something like those if not exactly those.  
Though historic=ruins seems correct, too, so perhaps better than "yes."

I slightly disagree with Frederik about a viewpoint necessarily being 
signposted or "called a viewpoint."  I've tagged tourism=viewpoint on many such 
places, where they are absolutely a viewpoint in my opinion (and I've hiked a 
LOT) but are neither so noted via signpost on site, nor on a map.  Many that I 
have so entered into OSM have a bench nearby (and so I'll tag amenity=bench on 
a node, too) so I'm not the only one who thinks the spot has a nice view worthy 
of a short sit and "take it all in."  I mean, hiking trails and viewpoints go 
together like peas and carrots, otherwise, what's the point?  (Exercise, sure — 
but, but the VIEWS!)  What I'm saying is that I believe it's OK for an OSM 
mapper who enters a tourism=viewpoint tag to say "I'm asserting this to be a 
bona fide viewpoint here."  Of course, if it is signed, benched or otherwise 
mapped or widely acknowledged as a viewpoint, all the better.

I tire of self-declared "concerned citizens" who think they should tell us 
mappers what is in the world and how to tag it.  What must be immediately 
dispensed with is that "maps make people do things."  (Hike closed trails, 
trespass...)  Nonsense:  maps show the world as it is (to the extent they can). 
 PEOPLE do things with maps.  When you start there, all the right things to do 
follow.  Let's get an access tag here, tune up "historic" and let the renderers 
do their magic.  (As usual, but it's a good question, thank you for that 
familiar sign and I'm glad there is such lively participation in suggestions).

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Clifford Snow]

Paul,
I don't have a definitive answer for you, but rendering usually takes a
while for large areas. I would expect it to render when zoomed in but
wasn't able to see any rendering on a couple of spot checks. I did notice
that around islands either the forest or the island, are shifted. I would
recommend cleaning those up.

Clifford

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 1:19 PM Paul White  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest boundary
> to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to render on
> the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator with no
> problems. (link to relation)
>  I
> don't think it's due to the amount of members, because the Tongass National
> Forest I added recently, with over 10,000 members, renders fine. And I know
> it's not due to the tags on the relation; they are standard to other
> national forests.
>
> If someone could look into it and see what's causing it to break, that
> would be great.
>
> pj
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 8/30/20 22:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
> Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself.

In my mind, a viewpoint is not just something from where you have a nice
view; it needs to be signposted or called a viewpoint. This, while
enjoying some "destination" or perhaps even "attraction" status, is not
what I would call a viewpoint. And even a tourist attraction, I think,
should not be something that is illegal to visit.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

[Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Paul White]

Hello,

I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest boundary
to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to render on
the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator with no
problems. (link to relation)
 I
don't think it's due to the amount of members, because the Tongass National
Forest I added recently, with over 10,000 members, renders fine. And I know
it's not due to the tags on the relation; they are standard to other
national forests.

If someone could look into it and see what's causing it to break, that
would be great.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Aug 30, 2020, 20:01 by frede...@remote.org:

>
> While it is undeniably a de-facto tourist attraction, and undeniably
> offers great views, I think it should probably be changed to
> historic=ruins, access=no, and the tracks leading up to it should also
> be changed to access=no.
>
> Opinions?
>
It seems quite clear that tracks should have correct legal status set.

Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself.

It is actually viewpoint, it is clearly an attractiom so should
we delete tourism=viewpoint? Probably no.

tourism=viewpoint + access=no (that will be ignored by
all/nearly all data consumers)?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Is the track closed to everyone, or is it perhaps access=private, if the
landowner has access?

There is also a more specific tag for military bunkers: military=bunker

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Amilitary%3Dbunker

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:16 PM brad  wrote:

> Agree, it seems pretty clear.   Even if the signs are universally
> ignored,  OSM shouldn't mislead everyone about the legality.
>
> On 8/30/20 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > "Devil's Slide Bunker" is a WW2 observation point near Pacifica in San
> > Mateo County in California.
> >
> > OSM has the bunker listed as a "tourism=viewpoint", along with access
> > tracks from the nearby CA-1 highway:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.56868/-122.51506
> >
> > The area is technically on private ground, and a sign at the location
> says:
> >
> > "Warning. Hiking or climbing prohibited in this area. This property is
> > designated as a dangerous area. It shall be unlawful to trespass
> > thereon. San Mateo County Ordinance No. 1462"
> > (http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/dssign.jpg)
> >
> > At the same time, searching the web shows tons of tourist guides that
> > recommend a visit to this prohibited place, replete with photos showing
> > lots of people around, and "Devil’s Slide Bunker sits on private
> > property and is technically not open to the public, but a nearby parking
> > area for the Devil’s Slide Trail, easy access along a short dirt trail,
> > and no fencing mean that people stop to check it out and walk around
> > every day."
> >
> > The DWG has received a complaint from a concerned citizen (via
> > AllTrails) complaining about this illegal tourist attraction on OSM.
> >
> > While it is undeniably a de-facto tourist attraction, and undeniably
> > offers great views, I think it should probably be changed to
> > historic=ruins, access=no, and the tracks leading up to it should also
> > be changed to access=no.
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > Best
> > Frederik
> >
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[brad]

Agree, it seems pretty clear.   Even if the signs are universally 
ignored,  OSM shouldn't mislead everyone about the legality.


On 8/30/20 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

"Devil's Slide Bunker" is a WW2 observation point near Pacifica in San
Mateo County in California.

OSM has the bunker listed as a "tourism=viewpoint", along with access
tracks from the nearby CA-1 highway:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.56868/-122.51506

The area is technically on private ground, and a sign at the location says:

"Warning. Hiking or climbing prohibited in this area. This property is
designated as a dangerous area. It shall be unlawful to trespass
thereon. San Mateo County Ordinance No. 1462"
(http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/dssign.jpg)

At the same time, searching the web shows tons of tourist guides that
recommend a visit to this prohibited place, replete with photos showing
lots of people around, and "Devil’s Slide Bunker sits on private
property and is technically not open to the public, but a nearby parking
area for the Devil’s Slide Trail, easy access along a short dirt trail,
and no fencing mean that people stop to check it out and walk around
every day."

The DWG has received a complaint from a concerned citizen (via
AllTrails) complaining about this illegal tourist attraction on OSM.

While it is undeniably a de-facto tourist attraction, and undeniably
offers great views, I think it should probably be changed to
historic=ruins, access=no, and the tracks leading up to it should also
be changed to access=no.

Opinions?

Best
Frederik




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

[Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

"Devil's Slide Bunker" is a WW2 observation point near Pacifica in San
Mateo County in California.

OSM has the bunker listed as a "tourism=viewpoint", along with access
tracks from the nearby CA-1 highway:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.56868/-122.51506

The area is technically on private ground, and a sign at the location says:

"Warning. Hiking or climbing prohibited in this area. This property is
designated as a dangerous area. It shall be unlawful to trespass
thereon. San Mateo County Ordinance No. 1462"
(http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/dssign.jpg)

At the same time, searching the web shows tons of tourist guides that
recommend a visit to this prohibited place, replete with photos showing
lots of people around, and "Devil’s Slide Bunker sits on private
property and is technically not open to the public, but a nearby parking
area for the Devil’s Slide Trail, easy access along a short dirt trail,
and no fencing mean that people stop to check it out and walk around
every day."

The DWG has received a complaint from a concerned citizen (via
AllTrails) complaining about this illegal tourist attraction on OSM.

While it is undeniably a de-facto tourist attraction, and undeniably
offers great views, I think it should probably be changed to
historic=ruins, access=no, and the tracks leading up to it should also
be changed to access=no.

Opinions?

Best
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 9:02 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> On 8/30/20 11:00, Mike Thompson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel  > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but
> > this is
> >not a crime.
> >
> > not a crime, until the land owner asks you leave and you fail to do so,
> > at least in Colorado.
>
> Exactly same as here and I believe NH.
>
>"Trespassing" is not a crime.
>
>"Trespass after notice" is a crime.
>
> I was merely making the distinction between "public right of access" and
> "trespassing (without notice)", as being very different.
>
Agree with your position,  was just providing additional information.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Greg Troxel]

On 8/30/20 11:00, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel > wrote:




   Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but
this is
   not a crime.

not a crime, until the land owner asks you leave and you fail to do so, 
at least in Colorado.


Exactly same as here and I believe NH.

  "Trespassing" is not a crime.

  "Trespass after notice" is a crime.

I was merely making the distinction between "public right of access" and 
"trespassing (without notice)", as being very different.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
>
>   Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is
>   not a crime.
>
not a crime, until the land owner asks you leave and you fail to do so, at
least in Colorado.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Greg Troxel]

"Alex Weech"  writes:

> Another thing I just thought of over breakfast, in New Hampshire by
> default private land has public access, and landowners have to post
> that trespassing is not allowed. It could be that that's a quirk of
> this part of the world, and other places don't have a posting
> requirement, which is why there's some cultural disconnect.

It is likely the same law has Mass, but I think you have the details of
"public access" subtly wrong.  I think the law says:

  Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is
  not a crime.

  If it is posted, or you have been told, then it is a crime.

From that, one can not conclude that "by default private land has public
access" in the OSM sense.  You can only conclude that "if you walk on it
you are not committing a crime".  In OSM, access=yes means "the public
has a legally-enshrined right of access", so not only can you go there,
but other people cannot tell you not to go there.  This notion of a
right is foundational to access=yes.

I agree we need a new tag.  As I see it

  access=yes

legally-enshrined right of access, like a public street.  (Also used
for private conservation land where the landowner invites the
public, even though technically they could change the rules.)
Perhaps shopping centers, even though not a right, it's close in
practice.  Essentially always in truly public places.

  access=permissive

no *right* of access, but generally understood that the landowner
does not object to typical use.  Often on trails not near houses
that cross private land, but without an easement.  Basically can
only be added by a local because it is essentially never signed.

  access=private

There is no right of access for random people.  There is no social
expectation that it is reasonable for people to go there for for
arbitrary purposes.  (For example, an actual neighbor coming to
introduce themself, etc. is ok.)  This is the default assumption for
driveways in New England - basically actual neighbors behaving in an
actual neighborly way that they wouldn't mind someone else doing at
their house is ok, deliveries ok, maybe gathering signatures for
ballot access ok, and pretty much anything else not ok.

  access=private
  sign:no_trespassing=yes

Further means there is a no trespassing sign.

  (we already have a way to map gates.)



What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
access=private on the map?  yes, driving on is usually technically not
illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok.

If you object to pink dots on driveways, I'd say that access=private is
what is expected so the renderer should be fixed to not show that and
show other access values.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #527 2020-08-11-2020-08-17

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 527,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13612/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us