First up, I appreciate your work mediating here Frederik, thank you.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 15:46, Frederik Ramm <> wrote:

> On 12.09.19 06:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the
> > ground, and it appears in this case that the local mapper Zhent, has
> > been mapping based on local knowledge.
> I have a feeling that Zhent's "foot=yes" might not mean "there is a sign
> here allowing access" but more "I walked here and wasn't arrested" ;)

> Question is, can we assume that any path leading into Conservation Lands
> that does *not* have a sign forbidding something, allows it? Probably
> not - NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for
> new "things that look like paths". Mind you, some of the paths that were
> added here have "sac_scale" and "trail_visibility" tags that do not
> sound like these are obvious trails actually prepared by NPWS for walkers.

Within the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area, NPWS says the only
two things prohibited are Pets and Smoking,

Normally for most National Parks and SCA's you're allowed to walk anywhere
unless otherwise prohibited.

> NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for
> new "things that look like paths"

On the flip side, how are we as mappers or the public meant to know that we
can't use this path unless they put up signage?

In my opinion paths signposted or otherwise for walking should be
foot=designated to indicate there is signage saying this path is explicitly
for walking. This provides a way to distinguish NPWS designated walking
paths. Any path they want people not to use they'd need to put sinage and
we'd tag as access=no, and any other path with no sigage would be somewhere
in the grey area between access=no and access=designated (which I always
saw access=yes as that middle ground tag).
Talk-au mailing list

Reply via email to