Tony,
Thanks for firstly raising your proposed edit prior to making the change (and also welcome to the OpenStreetMap community). I had not been to that track in about 6 months, so needed to revisit to see what was on the ground before presenting my argument. Please do not take this as an attack on yourself and I hope that you continue to contribute to the map.
I agree with Bryce, it is definitely not bicycle=no as there is nothing in the real world to indicate that this not allowed to be accessed. See:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
Which states when using 'bicylce=no': "Where bicycles are not permitted, ensure this is indicated "
As you can see in the below referenced photos, there is no indication that this is not permitted.
The track is quite well defined and well used, here is some photos of the track:
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/yu6LbmrK8FbjT1lPJzJlHw/photo
(you might need to scroll out using the scroll wheel if the photo looks too zoomed in)
In that sequence of photos you can see the fire access track which is very undefined (just low cut grass, with occassional wheel ruts) and a very clear mtb track.
To counter the arguments that it needs to be signed, there is no sign at this intersection of the fire trails, does this mean it is not defined and is not allowed to be accessed?
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/isYcxInLeTHkLFxNArzwkw/photo
This track appears to be quite popular according to the Strava segments:
https://www.strava.com/segments/5483327 (Southbound)
https://www.strava.com/segments/5483306 (Northbound)
This also shows that the track has existed in the real world for at least 2 years, being used as a bicycle track.
I also refer you to this OSM wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map
Which clearly states "When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there."
(Similar wording appears here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes)
I propose that user tonyf1's edit should be reverted as:
1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area.
2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated.
3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track, with a recognised name.
4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world.
Happy to hear counter positions, based on OSM principles, not what someone (park ranger) said to limit their legal liability.
Stephen.
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 at 10:51 AM
From: "Bryce Nesbitt" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: talk-au <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
From: "Bryce Nesbitt" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: talk-au <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
It physically exists, and therefore I view it as legitimate in OSM.
But access=no is not quite the right twist on things.
It really belongs to a much larger category of unofficial things: from rope swings to campgrounds to fruit trees,
that people build without the permission of the landowner.
I often want to know the difference.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
