Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW 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 the right lines of communication - which is difficult when you have OSM and NPWS being both distributed and bureaucratic in their own ways - I'm confident that we will be able to get outcomes that everyone is happy with. Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 29/02/2024 10:42 pm, Adam Steer wrote: 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 to OSM and justify themselves" is pretty weird and backwards. What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service edits", then respect that ... A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully and responsibly. ___ 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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 downstream users shouldn't use it as a path). Tagging it that way also stops someone mapping from aerial imagery, previous GPS tracks, and other sources, from going and adding it back in. Further reasons for mapping informal paths: 1. Orientation. Imagine you have memorized the map, and you know that after the bend you are to take the first path to the right. Now, if the "first path to the right" that you encounter is an informal one that has been deleted from the map, you might accidentally walk that path rather than the one you intended to take. 2. Search and rescue. If someone is lost somewhere, then informal paths would certainly be a good starting point to go looking for them - provided you know where these informal paths are. 3. Emergency. In an emergency situation it can be important to know about a path even if you're not allowed to use it. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ 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
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 downstream users shouldn't treat it as a path) and usually considered private property (again, so downstream users shouldn't use it as a path). Tagging it that way also stops someone mapping from aerial imagery, previous GPS tracks, and other sources, from going and adding it back in. It's part of the reason why access tagging and lifecycle prefixes exist, to allow those features to be in the OSM database, but still reflect their status so downstream users can correctly represent those features. I'd absolutely love for us to work with more government and non-government organisations to not only make it easier for us to build a more complete map, but to help them reflect information regarding their respective areas as accurately as possible, but that involves both sides working together, not just making changes and telling us how to use our database. The reverts only happen because they're wrong edits by our standards. We want them to edit and contribute in a way that allows them to correctly represent the status of their parks, and ensures that as a collaborative project, we don't go and continue to add in bad data unintentionally. Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 22:13, Adam Steer wrote: > 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 to OSM and justify > themselves" is pretty weird and backwards. > > What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help > you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service edits", then > respect that ... > > A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully > and responsibly. > > > ___ 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
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 to OSM and justify themselves" is pretty weird and backwards. What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service edits", then respect that ... A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully and responsibly. ___ 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
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 to organise some way for one or two of us to sit down with them or jump on a call with them to explain that we want their contributions towards OSM, but there's a right and wrong way to do it, and even just help them to understand how downstream sources use our data is out of our control, that'll hopefully be enough to at least keep both us and them happy. If we're lucky it might even open some doors for us to work with them further and improve OSM further. Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 21:41, wrote: > 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 land, they will see it as vandalism. If mappers see > Parks deleting map data, they will see that as vandalism too. > > The problem is that there is very little communication between the two > groups. Partly because Parks people are overworked and time poor, at > least in Victoria which I know best. Also because consensus management > and public forums are an unfamiliar form of management for Parks. They > are looking for the person in charge and confidential discussions. > > The paths include high stakes stuff, some trivial, but also tracks > that may lure people over cliffs and environmental damage that may > last forever. We are doing better at communicating than the land > managers are at the moment. That is good. I am glad to be part of this > group which is so patient and so responsible. I want us to keep being > responsible and keep listening. > > And I again invite the land managers to engage with us in discussion, > here or another place of their choice. It is a serious issue that will > only be resolved through discussion. > > Tony > > > 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 have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of > > tags. > > > > - the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point. > > > > - continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world > > monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of > > people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those > > costs? > > > > - who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join > this > > discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen, > > only to talk... > > > > This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing > > this post, and couldn't any more. > > > > There are more important values than a database. Land managers have > better > > things to do that have edit wars. > > > > And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream. > Please > > respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully > and > > wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land. > > > > With regards, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au < > > talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 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 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 < > graemefi...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> 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 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 Welch > m...@andrewwelch.net > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley > wrote: > > > There?s probably going to be other
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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 land, they will see it as vandalism. If mappers see Parks deleting map data, they will see that as vandalism too. The problem is that there is very little communication between the two groups. Partly because Parks people are overworked and time poor, at least in Victoria which I know best. Also because consensus management and public forums are an unfamiliar form of management for Parks. They are looking for the person in charge and confidential discussions. The paths include high stakes stuff, some trivial, but also tracks that may lure people over cliffs and environmental damage that may last forever. We are doing better at communicating than the land managers are at the moment. That is good. I am glad to be part of this group which is so patient and so responsible. I want us to keep being responsible and keep listening. And I again invite the land managers to engage with us in discussion, here or another place of their choice. It is a serious issue that will only be resolved through discussion. Tony 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 have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of tags. - the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point. - continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those costs? - who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join this discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen, only to talk... This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing this post, and couldn't any more. There are more important values than a database. Land managers have better things to do that have edit wars. And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream. Please respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully and wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land. With regards, Adam On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 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 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 wrote: 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 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 Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley wrote: 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 from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently closed, I?m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with some indistinct sections, so it?s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 floods have finished it off. I?ve asked a clarifying question on the changeset. Mark P. On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53?pm, Frederik Ramm wrote: 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 frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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 should stop continuing the edit wars and work with us. We've asked them to edit using our agreed-upon ways, but that only happened for the first time this week after their deletions were immediately reverted. This isn't something that's been going on for a week or two, it's been several months. If they want to help OSM reflect the true status of these tracks, they need to respect how OSM works. We want to work with them, and have been trying to. It's really up to them to come to the table at this point. Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 21:12, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 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 without gaining anything themselves. > > But deleting tracks that exist on the ground clearly *is* damaging OSM, > so if you want to avoid the "v-word" then at the very least you should > say: These people are willfully damaging OSM in pursuing their own goals. > > And if you repeatedly damage OSM, then we'll kick you out. No matter if > you're Joe Random, or the Emperor of China. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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 without gaining anything themselves. But deleting tracks that exist on the ground clearly *is* damaging OSM, so if you want to avoid the "v-word" then at the very least you should say: These people are willfully damaging OSM in pursuing their own goals. And if you repeatedly damage OSM, then we'll kick you out. No matter if you're Joe Random, or the Emperor of China. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ 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
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 have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of tags. - the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point. - continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those costs? - who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join this discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen, only to talk... This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing this post, and couldn't any more. There are more important values than a database. Land managers have better things to do that have edit wars. And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream. Please respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully and wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land. With regards, Adam On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 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 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 > wrote: > >> 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 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 Welch >>> m...@andrewwelch.net >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley wrote: >>> 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 from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the changeset. Mark P. On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote: 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 frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ 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 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
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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 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 > wrote: > >> 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 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 Welch >>> m...@andrewwelch.net >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley wrote: >>> 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 from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the changeset. Mark P. On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote: 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 frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ 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 mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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 wrote: > 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 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 Welch >> m...@andrewwelch.net >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley wrote: >> >>> 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 from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently >>> closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with >>> some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 >>> floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the >>> changeset. >>> >>> Mark P. >>> >>> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote: >>> >>> 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 frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
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 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 Welch > m...@andrewwelch.net > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley wrote: > >> 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 from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently >> closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with >> some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 >> floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the >> changeset. >> >> Mark P. >> >> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> 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 frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" >> >> ___ >> 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 mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
