Tony,
No objections to the proposed tagging in your email below.
Thanks for providing your case for the tagging (and the good photos) and ensuring OSM reflects the world.
Stephen.
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 4:57 PM
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au
To: stev...@email.com
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au
To: stev...@email.com
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Thanks Stephen
> In regards to item 10, the photo that I have referenced is from the
> intersection of Granite and Abrahams tracks, which is un marked(no
> sign), only wheel ruts/indents in the grass to indicate the
> intersection.
Yes, I looked there today and I can't see any signs either.
> If I understood correctly, the access requirements you have
> described for Ant Track, are better suited to an access=no tag, vs
> the individual tagging of uses currently applied. (This is in line
> with the signs on the entry to the park and the description of a
> formed track from your email below.)
> That is my 2 cents, not fussed either way, just prefered it to be
> clear what the access/use requirements are.
Yes, I agree, it should be tagged access=no. (This was always my
preference, I think the confusion was over what was allowed vs what
was enforced. The signage is clear and now I have clear advice from
Parks.)
I propose that the bicycle=no horse=no tags be removed from Ant Trail
and that Ant Trail and the trail at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 both be
tagged access=no
Thanks
Tony
> In regards to item 10, the photo that I have referenced is from the
> intersection of Granite and Abrahams tracks, which is un marked(no
> sign), only wheel ruts/indents in the grass to indicate the
> intersection.
Yes, I looked there today and I can't see any signs either.
> If I understood correctly, the access requirements you have
> described for Ant Track, are better suited to an access=no tag, vs
> the individual tagging of uses currently applied. (This is in line
> with the signs on the entry to the park and the description of a
> formed track from your email below.)
> That is my 2 cents, not fussed either way, just prefered it to be
> clear what the access/use requirements are.
Yes, I agree, it should be tagged access=no. (This was always my
preference, I think the confusion was over what was allowed vs what
was enforced. The signage is clear and now I have clear advice from
Parks.)
I propose that the bicycle=no horse=no tags be removed from Ant Trail
and that Ant Trail and the trail at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 both be
tagged access=no
Thanks
Tony
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
