It's been a couple of months, and Gaia has now refreshed its tiles based
on the updates I made for Kanangra.
The informal tracks are now rendered with significantly less priority
than the formal tracks. I should have taken a screenshot of before, but
I didn't. The formal tracks look to be the
Ben,
On 23/04/2024 05:22, Ben Ritter wrote:
Our solution involves extra work to accommodate the atypical workflow of
NPWS deleting paths as a means of communicating their updated access
rights.
You're very generous towards NPWS with your wording here; some might
call that "atypical
Hi Sebastian
Thanks for your input but I am not sure what you mean. Can you give a
bit more detail please?
Tony
Please don?t use Strava as your reference as to whether access is
permitted on a specific way as a lot of people do the wrong thing.
On 23 Apr 2024, at 4:25?PM,
Please don’t use Strava as your reference as to whether access is permitted on
a specific way as a lot of people do the wrong thing.
> On 23 Apr 2024, at 4:25 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Quoting Ben Ritter :
>
> ...
>> *Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in
Quoting Ben Ritter :
*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.
Not sure about this one but
Way: Road 30 (569541638)
access=no
Edited 10 months ago by VicWM
Quoting Ben Ritter :
...
*Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
collecting any and all examples.
Hi Ben
Strava seems to be not respecting private.
> The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It
is unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
purity.
Adam, with respect, I cannot agree with this evaluation of this discussion.
We have spent real time discussing how to represent the NPWS
I can agree with the last sentence, but not much else.
I think most of the people in this thread genuinely want to work with
the various parks services to get OSM solutions that work for both parks
and the OSM community.
We don't currently have any good communication channels.
If we can get
Hi,
On 29/02/2024 12:56, Andrew Welch via Talk-au wrote:
Part of the reason why we want them to map the way
we map is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it
is informal (so downstream users shouldn't treat it as a path) and
usually considered private property (again, so
I have to disagree with the first part of that. OSM is designed as
somewhere where you can map pretty much anything that exists, as long as it
can be verified. Part of the reason why we want them to map the way we map
is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it is
informal (so
Thanks Tony.
The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is
unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
purity.
The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable for
anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come
I think we have tried to reach out directly in the past but I could be
wrong. Communication is 100% the issue, and not for lack of trying.
If anyone does have contacts within NPWS or is willing to try and reach out
to get a discussion going, it definitely would be worth a shot.
Even if it's just
Thanks Adam, well put.
There are two groups, both trying to be of service to the wider
community. The mappers trying to build better maps and land managers
trying to protect and manage public land well.
If a land manager sees mappers not respecting their decisions about
managing public
Frederik basically covers what I was trying to say, the edits go against
how we map in OSM, and repeated attempts to work with them just haven't
worked yet. OSM does not belong to NPWS, they can't just go deleting things
like it's their own GIS system.
If they have better things to do, then they
Hi,
On 29/02/2024 11:20, Adam Steer wrote:
Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land
managers vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land
effectively?
You're right that in the strict sense of the word you'd only use it for
someone who damages OSM
Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land managers
vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land effectively?
This is a publicly archived forum, which land managers may read.
It's been raised a few times, and I have no problem raising this again:
- OSM
Yep, any "normal" mapper would have been reverted & had a holiday if they
persisted, long before this!
Thanks
Graeme
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 20:01, Andrew Welch wrote:
> As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
> point at which we should treat their edits like
As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
their deletions) until they actually work with us.
Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick
I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls Lookout,
after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(
Thanks
Graeme
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> The user who's edits were revered by
The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways as
access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
NPWS.
They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
Thanks,
Andrew
There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve just
had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by NPWS
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most of it was, a
small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first part
Thanks Frederik!
Had spotted that earlier & was going to ask if anybody could confirm it,
but got caught up with other stuff.
Thanks
Graeme
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 19:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
> the discussion but I have
I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths
in Tweed Shire, NSW here
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 - the deleter claims
to have ties to NPS.
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail
Here's the basics:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1HOH
I nicked the starting point off the US Trail Access Project page and
adapted it a bit.
Hard to show up all the different things that are useful in tagging a
track as there's only so many styles available!
cheers
Tom
It would be interesting to see what Strava shows, so yes, please, Tom, I'd
like to see the OT link.
Thanks
Graeme
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 at 22:22, Tom Brennan wrote:
> I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project
> link might be useful for Australia.
>
> I tagged all
I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project
link might be useful for Australia.
I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix
of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with
operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate.
Hi Mark
I would not offer Parks the option of a life cycle prefix until Parks
recognizes that this comes with an obligation to maintain the ex-path
in a disused, deconstructed or demolished state. I don't think that
Parks has to be perfect in this, the the path might be illegally
I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix (mainly to
keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation seems to be to
keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, informal=yes).
Mark P.
> On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:
>
> Given
: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the
rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that
perspective I understand why not having them in a map is in their
interests
have also contacted Stephen privately to see if he wants to chat
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
>> *To:* Andrew Welch
>> *Cc:* Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU
;
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
> *To:* Andrew Welch
> *Cc:* Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
>
>
>
>
I have also contacted Stephen privately to see if he wants to chat
Cheers - Phil
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
To: Andrew Welch
Cc: Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
NPWS
NPWS have now contacted DWG again.
I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10
paragraphs, then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the
lot!!! :-(
That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to
remember what I said!) tomorrow.
Thanks
I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if
consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is
with them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as
vandalism by mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure
that
I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
I had replied privately:
Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the understanding
that someone from NPWS was about to join the
I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had deleted
these last time):
Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has
officially closed the track.
“Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by myself
30 November
Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
Mark P.
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 7:05 am, forster wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Its OK by me. The park ranger who appears to be most connected to this has
> been contacted and invited into our discussion. What more can we do? Its
> unfortunatee that a
Hi
Its OK by me. The park ranger who appears to be most connected to this
has been contacted and invited into our discussion. What more can we do?
Its unfortunatee that a slow motion edit war will be the likely outcome.
Tony
In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?
Mark P.
In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?
Mark P.
> On 9 Feb 2024, at 6:23 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> No, nothing that I have heard.
> Tony
>
>
>> Just following up on this - has there been any further input from National
>> Parks regarding these paths?
>>
>> Mark P.
No, nothing that I have heard.
Tony
Just following up on this - has there been any further input from
National Parks regarding these paths?
Mark P.
On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28â¯pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
Hi
I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified
Just following up on this - has there been any further input from National
Parks regarding these paths?
Mark P.
> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified himself
> as Patrick and I have his
I’ll wait a bit for him to join the discussion before I upload.
Mark P.
> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified himself
> as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would share off
Hi
I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified
himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would
share off list.
He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street Map.
But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails
> On Jan 2, 2024, at 3:36 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Thanks, fellas!
>
> There's my new thing I've learnt today! :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:25, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 22:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Only thought there is should the
Thanks, fellas!
There's my new thing I've learnt today! :-)
Thanks
Graeme
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:25, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 22:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?
> >
> > Notes are only visible to mappers on
On 02/01/2024 22:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?
Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to
"everybody" (?) using it downstream.
This seems to be referring to an OSM note _tag_ rather than "OSM notes"
Because Graeme politely included a question mark, I'll do my best here to offer
my interpretation, which might actually approach and "answer" to his question:
whether a note=* or a description=*, each of these data are "in" OSM, as OSM is
a database. "Downstream" use cases, like a rendering,
Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?
Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to "everybody"
(?) using it downstream.
Thanks
Graeme
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 20:25, Mark Pulley wrote:
> I’ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for
I’ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload. (Keeping the
trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible trail deleted)
The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
highway=path
foot=yes
informal=yes
trail_visibilty=intermediate
surface=dirt
So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together with a
hazard= tag?
Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to set-up
an OSM liasion contact.
Thanks
Graeme
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley wrote:
> I’m not aware of any restriction regarding
I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only. The
map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any restriction, and
the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any restrictions.
Mark P.
> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> If there is
If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
continue further and therefore access=no.
Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just
means it's the end of
As you say, they are trying to discourage walkers but nothing to indicate it
is not permitted to enter.
Path should be in OSM
Ian
> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:52:06 +1100
> From: Mark Pulley
> To: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths
On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.
The asphalt path ends at a lookout https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826
The ‘controversial’ path is still present south of here - I followed it some of
the way (about 350m), but didn’t follow it all the way to the
I didn't so much mean the heat trace, as the actual line on the map itself
which is no longer shown for those "disused" paths.
Thanks
Graeme
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 17:03, wrote:
> Hi Graeme
> I have not seen anything indicating Strava removes ways from heat
> maps. Way 1033069444 was removed
Hi Graeme
I have not seen anything indicating Strava removes ways from heat
maps. Way 1033069444 was removed by lifecycle prefix on 1 September.
Its heat trace is still there. I expect it to fade as it is used less
and finally disappear.
Tony
Made this, slightly tongue in cheek, comment t'other week.
Turns out that they possibly do!
Just clearing a Note & noticed that the traces of these paths,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=3942697#map=18/-32.95437/151.74519
which are tagged as disused, don't appear in Strava!
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 11:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
>
And they or anyone else can't do that if we just delete the way completely
as some are
In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
Thanks
Graeme
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter wrote:
>
>> I agree with all of this.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter wrote:
> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> should exist in OSM.
>
> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
> it should be represented with:
>
>- highway=* because it is clearly a
I agree that environmental preservation doesn't generally need to be in
conflict with ground truth.
If an area of a park - or tracks - is closed by land managers, tracks in
that area should be tagged accordingly.
By simply deleting tracks from OSM, mappers are more likely to add the
tracks
On 09/10/2023 00:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after
I sent my own saying more or less the same thing?
I cocked it up anyway - sending it from a phone as html only, so I
suspect many people (including the list archive) won't see
& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after I
sent my own saying more or less the same thing?
Thanks
Graeme
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not even controversial that NSW
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer wrote:
>
> It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails
> from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke
> accounts of repeat trail remappers.
>
Not disagreeing with you, Adam, but if the track has
> The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and leave them removedI'm not actually convinced that is true.If something is visible from
Hi all
What is the OSM community issue with the concept of 'do not map this it
will cause harm'?
OSMF and the OSM community cannot stop downstream users from using data
however they like. It's open data, people may not even be aware that they
need to apply specific tagging for visibility or not.
I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with the
addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
Many OSM users are
I understand what you would like the mission statement to be.
But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth.
If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion.
I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a
genuine ground feature that someone has
While 'removing it now' might seam like a good idea.. some map renders
do not up date for 1 year.
So some will still show what you are attempting to remove. And then if a
solution is found those removals will simply have to be reverted where
possible.
Rather than removal how about retagging
Yes Ewen, I agree
The OSM mission statement is at
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement
I would like to see it also include something like Google's "donât be evil"*
Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"
Tony Forster
* Google changed "donât be evil" to âdo
Hi all,
A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting
the environment over ground truth mapping.
On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an
outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
potential to change the
A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.
For this
(I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I agree
with Tom's take and have commented below:
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, wrote:
> Tricky one.
>
> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
> don't want people visiting a place,
: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers or gov
wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I understand why
not having them in a map is in their interests.
On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:37, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers
> also
: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the
rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that
perspective I understand why not having them in a map
On 22/9/23 16:37, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Hi Folks,
Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks
be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track
managers also have a responsibility to
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 23:25:02 +1000
> From: Andrew Harvey
> To: Mark Pulley
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
> Message-ID:
>jeo...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; char
On 22/9/23 16:37, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Hi Folks,
Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track
managers also have a responsibility to
– I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife
> for many years so I am slightly biased.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sebastian S.
> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ;
> Mark Pulley
> *Cc:* OpenStreetMap-AU
for
many years so I am slightly biased.
From: Sebastian S.
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ; Mark
Pulley
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I recall these discussions vaguely
I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers or gov
wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I understand why
not having them in a map is in their interests.
On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey
On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley wrote:
> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
> Park).
>
> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
> reverted.
I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has deleted
some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National Park).
These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
These paths have been
84 matches
Mail list logo
