Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Volker Schmidt]

There is another problem with animal paths completely apart from
permissions: they may lead you to nowhere.
(years back I nearly got lost in a labyrinth of footpaths in the dense
macchia in Corsica. They were well visible and wide, but just high enough
to walk for children, and were actually trodden by escaped bovines or wild
boar (?). I really got scared - I had no compass and no provisions)

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 13:19, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:03 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 18:08 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
>> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of
>>> land managers.  Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or
>>> they are not.  There isn't really a middle ground here.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is middle ground. For example in many German nature reserves, you
>> may enter the reserve, provided you remain on the foot paths.
>>
>
> We are saying the same thing.  access=yes for the allowed paths, access=no
> for anything else.  The topic of discussion are unofficial/social/animal
> paths in places where there are established paths intended for visitors.  I
> suppose if there is a middle ground you could muster access=discouraged,
> but the documentation says this is for signed roads, not unsigned paths.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:03 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 18:08 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>
>> +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of
>> land managers.  Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or
>> they are not.  There isn't really a middle ground here.
>>
>
>
> There is middle ground. For example in many German nature reserves, you
> may enter the reserve, provided you remain on the foot paths.
>

We are saying the same thing.  access=yes for the allowed paths, access=no
for anything else.  The topic of discussion are unofficial/social/animal
paths in places where there are established paths intended for visitors.  I
suppose if there is a middle ground you could muster access=discouraged,
but the documentation says this is for signed roads, not unsigned paths.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 2 December 2020, Jo wrote
> > your feet may sink into the mud
Wear wellies.


 though and beware the BULL :-)
Make sure you know if it a recognised dairy breed or not.

Phil (trigpoint)



-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 18:08 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

> +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of
> land managers.  Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or
> they are not.  There isn't really a middle ground here.
>


There is middle ground. For example in many German nature reserves, you may
enter the reserve, provided you remain on the foot paths.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Jo]

>
>
> +1, same here for wild boars. “animal path” does not provide sufficient
> information what kind of object it is, because these paths are quite
> different depending on the animals. The mentioned cow paths are probably
> always suitable for humans, while others may not.
>
> your feet may sink into the mud though and beware the BULL :-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Dec 2020, at 05:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Wombat pads are wide enough to follow but the animal is lo to the ground and 
> can go through what to a human is inpenatrable scrub - some is simply to 
> thiic and interwwoven and some has sharp needle leves that penitrate colthing 
> and prick the skin.


+1, same here for wild boars. “animal path” does not provide sufficient 
information what kind of object it is, because these paths are quite different 
depending on the animals. The mentioned cow paths are probably always suitable 
for humans, while others may not.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Warin]

On 2/12/20 6:41 am, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not 
be solvable.


How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?


Humans are animals, mammals to be a bit more exact.

The non-human paths I have had most experience of following are made 
by sheep in the mountains.


On reasonably level ground they appear very similar to human made 
paths, and is tempting to follow them.


The problems come as the ground gets steep, and as you no doubt aware 
sheep have small feet which are relatively close together.


The result is that the paths can be deep ruts, that a little more than 
10cm wide, not wide enough for a pair of human walking boots to pass.


Wombat pads are wide enough to follow but the animal is lo to the ground 
and can go through what to a human is inpenatrable scrub - some is 
simply to thiic and interwwoven and some has sharp needle leves that 
penitrate colthing and prick the skin.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not
> be solvable.
> 
> How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?

Humans are animals, mammals to be a bit more exact.

The non-human paths I have had most experience of following are made by
sheep in the mountains.

On reasonably level ground they appear very similar to human made
paths, and is tempting to follow them.

The problems come as the ground gets steep, and as you no doubt aware
sheep have small feet which are relatively close together.

The result is that the paths can be deep ruts, that a little more than
10cm wide, not wide enough for a pair of human walking boots to pass.

Little point mapping the narrow parts, but the parts that look like it
may be a path are worth mapping to indicate that they are not, and the
next unfortunate bobble hatted walker will know not to follow them.

Phil (trigpoint)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:59 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Dec 1, 2020, 00:44 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert <
> lrich...@posteo.net>:
>
> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my
> area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it is
> allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes significant
> shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would be good.
>
>
> +1
>
> +1, though in cases of protected areas with "do not leave signed trails"
> rules, access=no
> would be a viable tagging
>

+1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of
land managers.  Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or
they are not.  There isn't really a middle ground here.  Though of course,
it is up to renderers to render access=no trails differently to make
access=no actually solve the problem being posed (the public following
paths in OSM that they shouldn't)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Dec 1, 2020, 00:44 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert <> 
> lrich...@posteo.net> >:
>
>>
>> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many  trails in 
>> my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used  by people - but 
>> it is allowed for people to walk on these and they  are sometimes 
>> significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them  in some cases would 
>> be good. 
>>
>>
>
> +1
>
+1, though in cases of protected areas with "do not leave signed trails" rules, 
access=no
would be a viable tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not be 
solvable.

How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?

Nov 30, 2020, 20:41 by s8e...@runbox.com:

> Hello everyone,
>
> With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our main 
> national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more and 
> more OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.
>
>
> "Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths for humans, 
> but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows. I assume that these are 
> visible on aerial photographs, and in the field they may also look like 
> trails. However, it is really not the intention that people should walk 
> there. They change regularly and we also do not want to put signs 'forbidden 
> entry' all over the area. 
> We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an active 
> micromapper might add them again."
>
> Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should NOT be 
> mapped at all (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1). 
> However, when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL THE THINGS. 
> Not mapping these "animal trails" that you know about, means they will likely 
> show up on the map as a simple highway=path, added by somebody else. 
> Therefor, we would prefer to map them with a tag like highway=animal_track, 
> to make sure mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT 
> be mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or a 
> different approach?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Dec 2020, at 05:03, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> humans=no?


looks like an access tag, so it is not suitable unless this is the legal 
situation.

Generally we might not be able to have a solution with a single tag, because of 
the differing legal situation. In some countries and regions  it is perfectly 
legal to walk on private ground in the countryside (e.g. in Europe Scotland, 
Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and others), while in others it is 
generally forbidden (but may be allowed individually).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Cheers Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Dec 2020, at 04:31, Minh Nguyen via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Regardless, informal=yes seems especially appropriate for these animal-made 
> paths.


*if* the path could be useful for humans (i.e. you can walk there), 
highway=path and informal=yes may be suitable, otherwise I would not give the 
thing a highway tag (personally I would not map it at all then, but maybe 
someone wants to anyway, but they should take care that it can not be confused 
with paths)


Cheers Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Minh Nguyen via Tagging]

Vào lúc 16:32 2020-11-30, Warin đã viết:
I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess! 
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example 
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging 
that... terrible.


animal=wellness is a terrific example of conflicting key usage [1] 
between "It is for ___ animals" [2] and "It is a ___ for animals" [3]. 
It looks like there's already been an effort to deconflict this usage, 
with amenity=animal_boarding now pairing with animal_boarding=* and 
amenity=animal_training with animal_training=*. Meanwhile, access 
restrictions use freestanding keys like horse=* and dog=*, and the 
hazard=animal_crossing proposal currently would use hazard:animal=* or 
hazard:species=*. [4] If these "It is for ___ animals" usages are out of 
favor, then there would be no conflict in adopting highway=path 
animal=yes cow=yes or animal=path cow=yes for a cowpath.


Regardless, informal=yes seems especially appropriate for these 
animal-made paths.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Homonymous_keys
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_training
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animals
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Tod Fitch]

Maybe animal_path=yes|cow|deer|...

Where the values cover the various animals that create paths visible on imagery.

--
Sent from my phone, please forgive my brevity.

> On Monday, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:15 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  (mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 06:54, Yves via Tagging  (mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org)> wrote:
> > Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
>
> Not a bad idea at all, even if just to stop them being marked as paths, but 
> what would you tag them as?
>
> Footpaths etc are currently tagged as highway=xxx, which really isn't 
> appropriate for an animal track!
>
> New tag animal=track / trail / path?
>
> &, as in most things OSM, it's been discussed before, apparently with no 
> resolution?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Warin]

On 1/12/20 11:06 am, Casper Van Battum wrote:
I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the 
sense that the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on 
the trails. I'm guessing it's either protected land or private 
property these trails are on. Since the organization mentioned they 
didn't want to put up "no access" signs, it would be appropriate to 
map the paths as such.


However I'm with you on that this brings us no closer to a general 
solution for tagging animal paths, that applies even beyond this 
specific situation.


The big question is: what distinguishes an animal path from a human 
path? Animals use human paths, and in numerous cases humans use animal 
paths. It would be hard to define it.



Animals come in different sizes.

A pad made by wild horses have sufficient height and width that most 
hikers could use them, this they can get muddy or steep in certain places.


A pad made by wombats can go under plants that would have humans 
crawling on their stomachs not just on their hands and knees.


We generally follow the guidelines to tag highways according to their 
usage (see tracks vs roads for example). Currently highway=path  is 
defined as "generic path, multi-usage or unspecified usage" and animal 
paths do already fit that description. We could define animal paths as 
"generic path, used mainly by animals" but I suppose it should be a 
specific kind of path (something along the lines of 
highway=path+animal=yes) rather than a new type of highway. But again, 
is this enough of a distinction to merit its own tagging scheme?




I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess! 
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example 
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging 
that... terrible.




Cheers, Casper
On 1 Dec 2020, at 00:47, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote:




Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert
mailto:lrich...@posteo.net>>:

I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many
trails in my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom
used by people - but it is allowed for people to walk on these
and they are sometimes significant shortcuts so allowing
routing over them in some cases would be good.


+1

After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I
believe that they mostly do not apply to the situation here.
People were mainly concerned about wildlife protection, and
Belgian cows are not falling under my idea of "wildlife".




Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Casper Van Battum]

I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the sense that 
the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on the trails. I'm 
guessing it's either protected land or private property these trails are on. 
Since the organization mentioned they didn't want to put up "no access" signs, 
it would be appropriate to map the paths as such.

However I'm with you on that this brings us no closer to a general solution for 
tagging animal paths, that applies even beyond this specific situation.

The big question is: what distinguishes an animal path from a human path? 
Animals use human paths, and in numerous cases humans use animal paths. It 
would be hard to define it. We generally follow the guidelines to tag highways 
according to their usage (see tracks vs roads for example). Currently 
highway=path  is defined as "generic path, multi-usage or unspecified usage" 
and animal paths do already fit that description. We could define animal paths 
as "generic path, used mainly by animals" but I suppose it should be a specific 
kind of path (something along the lines of highway=path+animal=yes) rather than 
a new type of highway. But again, is this enough of a distinction to merit its 
own tagging scheme?

Cheers, Casper

On 1 Dec 2020, 00:47, at 00:47, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
>Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert
>>:
>
>> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in
>my
>> area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but
>it is
>> allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes
>significant
>> shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would be good.
>>
>
>+1
>
>After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I
>believe
>that they mostly do not apply to the situation here. People were mainly
>concerned about wildlife protection, and Belgian cows are not falling
>under
>my idea of "wildlife".
>
>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Warin]

On 1/12/20 10:36 am, Lukas Richert wrote:


I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in 
my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but 
it is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes 
significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases 
would be good. However, they should be lower priority than real paths.


- Lukas

On 30.11.20 23:06, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
mailto:zelonew...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things
related to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. 
Perhaps a combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what
we're describing?


 Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.

--



I think these are called 'animal pads'? They are usefull for hiking 
where no other path exists as they avoid further damage to vegetation 
and damage to pants/gaiters/shoes. They do also lead hikers astray by 
leading away from the path that they should use. Possibly highway=pad or 
highway=animal_pad?


The tags 'note' and 'comment' are for mappers and not usually used by 
renders, using the tag 'description' may be more helpful?


The tag 'access' should be used where access is restricted within OSM. I 
don't think it is necessary to have signage on the ground to apply 
access tags that are 'community standard' e.g. most home driveways in 
Australia would be regarded as access=private and should be tagged as 
such within OSM despite there being no sign on every home driveway.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert :

> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my
> area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it is
> allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes significant
> shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would be good.
>

+1

After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I believe
that they mostly do not apply to the situation here. People were mainly
concerned about wildlife protection, and Belgian cows are not falling under
my idea of "wildlife".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Lukas Richert]

I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my 
area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it 
is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes 
significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would 
be good. However, they should be lower priority than real paths.


- Lukas

On 30.11.20 23:06, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
mailto:zelonew...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things
related to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. 
Perhaps a combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what
we're describing?


 Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.

--
Paul


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things related
> to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden.  Perhaps a
> combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what we're describing?
>

 Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things related to
animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden.  Perhaps a combination
of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what we're describing?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 4:16 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 06:54, Yves via Tagging 
> wrote:
>
>> Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
>>
>
> Not a bad idea at all, even if just to stop them being marked as paths,
> but what would you tag them as?
>
> Footpaths etc are currently tagged as highway=xxx, which really isn't
> appropriate for an animal track!
>
> New tag animal=track / trail / path?
>
> &, as in most things OSM, it's been discussed before, apparently with no
> resolution?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 06:54, Yves via Tagging 
wrote:

> Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
>

Not a bad idea at all, even if just to stop them being marked as paths, but
what would you tag them as?

Footpaths etc are currently tagged as highway=xxx, which really isn't
appropriate for an animal track!

New tag animal=track / trail / path?

&, as in most things OSM, it's been discussed before, apparently with no
resolution?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Casper van Battum]

Adding a `note=*` would not really help much here. The issue is that the 
paths show up on the maps viewed by people. If we want to to give 
platforms the ability to not render animal paths, they should be easy to 
filter out. You can't do that with a generic note. I'm not sure if 
something already exists for animal paths like this but I would also be 
in favor of creating a specific tagging scheme for this. Without going 
into the entire `highway=path` discussion, as alternative to 
`highway=animal_track` we could maybe add a more specific version along 
the lines of `path=animal`.


As a quick solution: A simple `access=no` might also do the trick of 
course, but that doesn't describe the actual path.


Cheers, Casper

On 2020-11-30 21:27, Seth Deegan wrote:
You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact 
the mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.


I agree that in this case, mapping animal tracks is /especially 
/necessary.
If someone isn't going to map it now, they're going to do so in the 
future (as you've seen), incorrectly.


On a related idea, OSM should probably implement "Area Notes" into the 
API to notify mappers how to map specific areas.


lectrician1 


On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM s8evq > wrote:


Hello everyone,

With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with
Natuurpunt, our main national nature conservation organization.
They are slowing using more and more OSM and recently came to us
with the following remark.


"Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths
for humans, but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows.
I assume that these are visible on aerial photographs, and in the
field they may also look like trails. However, it is really not
the intention that people should walk there. They change regularly
and we also do not want to put signs 'forbidden entry' all over
the area.
We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an
active micromapper might add them again."

Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should
NOT be mapped at all
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1
).
However, when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL
THE THINGS. Not mapping these "animal trails" that you know about,
means they will likely show up on the map as a simple
highway=path, added by somebody else. Therefor, we would prefer to
map them with a tag like highway=animal_track, to make sure
mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT be
mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or
a different approach?

Thanks.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Yves via Tagging]

Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
Yves 

Le 30 novembre 2020 21:27:33 GMT+01:00, Seth Deegan  a 
écrit :
>You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact the
>mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.
>
>I agree that in this case, mapping animal tracks is *especially *necessary.
>If someone isn't going to map it now, they're going to do so in the future
>(as you've seen), incorrectly.
>
>On a related idea, OSM should probably implement "Area Notes" into the API
>to notify mappers how to map specific areas.
>
>lectrician1 
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM s8evq  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our
>> main national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more
>> and more OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.
>>
>>
>> "Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths for
>> humans, but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows. I assume that
>> these are visible on aerial photographs, and in the field they may also
>> look like trails. However, it is really not the intention that people
>> should walk there. They change regularly and we also do not want to put
>> signs 'forbidden entry' all over the area.
>> We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an active
>> micromapper might add them again."
>>
>> Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should NOT be
>> mapped at all (
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1). However,
>> when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL THE THINGS. Not
>> mapping these "animal trails" that you know about, means they will likely
>> show up on the map as a simple highway=path, added by somebody else.
>> Therefor, we would prefer to map them with a tag like highway=animal_track,
>> to make sure mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT
>> be mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or a
>> different approach?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Seth Deegan]

You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact the
mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.

I agree that in this case, mapping animal tracks is *especially *necessary.
If someone isn't going to map it now, they're going to do so in the future
(as you've seen), incorrectly.

On a related idea, OSM should probably implement "Area Notes" into the API
to notify mappers how to map specific areas.

lectrician1 


On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM s8evq  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our
> main national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more
> and more OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.
>
>
> "Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths for
> humans, but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows. I assume that
> these are visible on aerial photographs, and in the field they may also
> look like trails. However, it is really not the intention that people
> should walk there. They change regularly and we also do not want to put
> signs 'forbidden entry' all over the area.
> We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an active
> micromapper might add them again."
>
> Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should NOT be
> mapped at all (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1). However,
> when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL THE THINGS. Not
> mapping these "animal trails" that you know about, means they will likely
> show up on the map as a simple highway=path, added by somebody else.
> Therefor, we would prefer to map them with a tag like highway=animal_track,
> to make sure mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT
> be mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or a
> different approach?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging