Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Ian Steer via Talk-au]

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 by NSW NPWS
> 
> 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 end.
> 
> There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows
the
> sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
> https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6
> 
> On the left side of the sign, there?s a warning icon (exclamation mark),
then
> ?No safety rail?, another warning icon (man falling off edge of crumbling
cliff),
> then ?Unstable edges?
> 
> On the right side of the sign is the text ?End of track, no safety rail
beyond this
> point?
> 
> The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it?s
not
> technically a ?do not enter? sign.
> 
> Does that help with what to do with this particular example?
> 
> Mark P.
> 
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
> >> 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 particular example, the results would be:
> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access
> >> tags 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively
> >> abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* 3. No reversion
> >
> > I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a
lifecycle prefix
> on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> >
> > If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the
> closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason
> for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or
> something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
> >
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> au/attachments/20231214/f7dcd5fa/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 198, Issue 6
> ***


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

Re: [talk-au] Nowra bridge help

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Bob

So the western bridge is now northbound & the "middle" bridge is south?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 08:06, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> Wonder if someone might fix this one. Don't want to stuff it up
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/-34.86388/150.60252
>
> The main crossing over the Shoalhaven River on Princes Hwy
>
> The eastern/old span is no longer in use and gated at the northern end.
> Both "new" spans are in use one way each way 3 lanes each. My (not
> overly useful) 11/12/23 southbound Mapillary imagery hasn't merged yet.
> Typically that may take another week. No overhead imagery is current.
>
> I can dig up all the 1FPS 4K photos I have if anyone wants them.
>
> Tnx, Bob
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Nowra bridge help

[Bob Cameron]

Wonder if someone might fix this one. Don't want to stuff it up

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/-34.86388/150.60252

The main crossing over the Shoalhaven River on Princes Hwy

The eastern/old span is no longer in use and gated at the northern end. 
Both "new" spans are in use one way each way 3 lanes each. My (not 
overly useful) 11/12/23 southbound Mapillary imagery hasn't merged yet. 
Typically that may take another week. No overhead imagery is current.


I can dig up all the 1FPS 4K photos I have if anyone wants them.

Tnx, Bob


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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

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 end.

There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows the 
sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6

On the left side of the sign, there’s a warning icon (exclamation mark), then 
“No safety rail”, another warning icon (man falling off edge of crumbling 
cliff), then “Unstable edges”

On the right side of the sign is the text “End of track, no safety rail beyond 
this point”

The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it’s not 
technically a “do not enter” sign.

Does that help with what to do with this particular example?

Mark P.

> 
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  > wrote:
>> 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 particular example, the results would be:
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively 
>> abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> 3. No reversion
> 
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle 
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> 
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should capture 
> the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason 
> for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or 
> something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
> 

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