Good discussion, I also think the track should be mapped. Aside from access no I think it might be worthwhile adding decommissioned or rehabilitation tags to tracks that should not be used to indicate their intended end.
Other thoughts are: - why show access=no tracks on the map? Admittedly this comes down to the data consumers and their rendering. - would tagging the whole area with access=conditional add any value? - how will this discussion that will end in some form of agreed practice be documented on the map, aside from revised tracks that is? - have they also threatened other mapping companies with legal actions? ianal but my response would be highlighting the various mismatches as already pointed out in the thread. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On 12 September 2019 6:27:23 pm AEST, Ewen Hill <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Frederick, > > If I use the term bush walking colloquially, then it means to use a >track that already exists., either single track or 4wd track (fire >trail) >predominantly however there might be times where you cross a grass land >where there is no well defined track. > >If you are talking about walking through a forest not on a track or the >track is hideously overgrown than I would call that "bush bashing". >The >term hiking has connotations mainly of trails with the odd bit of bush >bashing included. > >Large wombats and kangaroos who can create tracks in sparse undergrowth >that is hard to tell from a man-made walking trail on the ground. >Another >issue is old bulldozer tracks or firefighter tracks that were used to >stop >wild fires (sometimes called mineral earth breaks). Normally these are >removed post the wildfire but sometimes only at the start of the new >track. > >In the brochure, that sounds like I should stay on the trails.if >walking > >Ewen
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
