On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 19:21, <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew > Thanks, I hadn't considered life cycle prefixes. There might be > problems with disused or abandoned if those reopening the trails > argued that they used the trail last week so it was neither disused > nor abandoned. >
I can see the issue, but still hopefully access=no indicating legal access should still be able to be used if it's clear enough that access is not permitted. > "illegal tracks", the ones I am thinking of are illegal in both their > construction and use, if I recollect correctly, the fine for > construction is much much bigger than use. Sorry if the description > has baggage or is misleading. Re access=no, if I recollect correctly > they still display in OSM, only slightly more red. You probably > wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and Strava. > On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:43, Phil Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > An illegal track in a national park is likely to be one that is cut > without the authority of the managing agency. It’s a fairly regular > occurrence and often the start of increased impacts in ares that may be > reserved for conservation rather than recreation. Thanks for the explanation, I didn't think about unauthorised track construction, I had assumed these tracks simply formed over time by repeated use, which in itself wouldn't have been illegal unless the area was closed. Even then a track that was illegally constructed, wouldn't be illegal to use unless it was signposted as such. It's just after hearing park authorities raise concerns about us showing un-authorised tracks on OSM, my reaction is usually how are we or anyone supposed to know which tracks are authorised and which aren't unless there is signage to indicate that.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
