Agree with most things you said Stev...
But for the copyright map thing. 'We' should not be using copyright maps
for anything in OSM. I do use copyright maps .. usually for planning
trips ... along with OSM or course. Once the trip is completed I use my
trip generated knowledge to add/improve to OSM.
This complies with the 'on the ground' guide. And that guide should
override other things.
Before reverting tonyf1's edit he should be contacted through OSM, this
can avoid edit wars, clarify why things are done and lead to better
understanding of what to do.
On 9/08/2015 9:41 PM, stev...@email.com wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
