The access issues get very murchy very quickly. We have a Forestry area that is clearly signposted for bikes to stick to vehicle tracks, however for 10 years or more Forestry has sponsored volunteer mountain bikers to build and maintain trails in this area. Go figure.
Parks have a category for some trails called "keep but don't promote". ie they are not going to close the trail but they are not going to signpost it either. Maybe the Ant trail is one of these?? We have a council with a trail on an un-made road reserve. This is legal access for walkers and bike riders and possibly motor vehicles, however the trail is littered with no-bikes signs. Contact the council and they confirm it is ok for bikes to use. We have a council with signposted downhill mountain bike trails saying no-walkers, but there is not legal standing for the signage. We have a trail that seems to be randomly ok or not ok for bikes depending on the Ranger. One Ranger says, yep not supposed to ride bikes on that trail, that Ranger moves on and another Ranger takes his place, yep it's fine to ride bikes on that trail. Ranger moves on and another Ranger takes his place, no bikes shouldn't be on that trail.... DOH! We have trails that local volunteers have made up their own signage to limit use of a trail to their liking, with no authority from anyone, and some of this signage looks very professional. Walkers excluding bike riders, bike riders excluding walkers.... Good luck putting accurate access info in OSM. lol David > Hi > > We have much the same issue with walking tracks and old > surveying/mining roads is Tasmania. Parks has played a very > dominating roll with Tasmapi it is actually dangerous as you can be > standing on a made road/track and as it does not appear on the map you > can get confused and lost. Also had a track appeared on a map a > walking group could have walked out using it rather than calling in > search and rescue to cross a flooded river. > > I use a simple rule, if it appears on the ground then it should appear > in OSM. I do fully agree that access should be no. > > Just my thoughts based on lot of ground truthing. Ie getting lost. > > Cheers > Brett Russell > > On 30 Jul 2015, at 12:09 pm, David Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I lean towards mapping what's physically there, so if the trail >> exists I think it's ok to map it if you want to. >> >> If the trail is blocked by a fence/barrier and signage saying keep >> out etc, then I think access=no would be appropriate as it's facts >> based on what's physically there. >> >> I also default to "If in doubt, leave the map as it is". So if >> someone has mapped something and I'm not really sure of any changes >> I'm thinking of making are correct, then I leave it alone. >> >> Anyway that's just my thoughts. >> >> >>> Hi >>> >>> What (if any) is the correct tagging for unauthorised trails in >>> national and state parks? >>> >>> For example, Ant Track >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.92599/145.32051 >>> >>> I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do >>> not create additional trails and only use official trails. They >>> would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named >>> because it implies official status to park users. >>> >>> I have not yet worked out how to contact the author of Ant Track. >>> >>> Thanks Tony >>> >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > _________________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
