On 30/10/21 10:19 am, EON4wd wrote:
As part of this discussion I would like to know how to handle illegal
motor bike tracks through the bush.
I have found that these can often be mapped as a track, as these can
be seen clearly on a satellite photo.
They are definitely on the ground and often used every weekend,
although there are many signs saying it is illegal.
Note that it is only illegal for motorised vehicles, walking or horses
is OK.
These ‘tracks’ are not wide enough for a 4wd although an enthusiastic
armchair mapper has mapped them as such, and I have been often caught out.
(I am very biased against armchair mapping for the bush. As an avid
4wd and bush lover, it is much better that the track is not marked
than find a track that is marked but shouldn’t be. Fuel and time both
need to be managed when you are a long way from a town.)
I don’t like deleting these tracks but they are not ‘management’ , it
is illegal to use them, and they are not wide enough for a standard car.
Question – how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor
bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn’t seem appropriate.
highway=path .. is a 'track' but not wide enough for a car/4WD. That is
what I'd use.
Add access as appropriate.
The rest of the discussion will hopefully answer how to map an illegal
track.
Thanks
Ian
While 'on the ground' mapping is preferable there is a lot of Australia
and not than many mappers .. so needs must.
*From:*Dian Ågesson <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, 29 October 2021 11:41 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in
Nerang National Park)
I think you’ve struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground,
it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think
that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed.
It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path
is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks
the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn’t be
used.
I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the
status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It’s
primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate
use.
something like:
access=no
informal=yes
rehabilitation:highway=path
source:access=parks agency name
Dian
On 2021-10-29 22:11, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
OSM is the database.
If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be
fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise.
So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has
specified
that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with
specified modes
of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be
fixed if they
don't.
Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground
does not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map
them again,
possibly with wrong tags once more.
OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.
I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because
you don't
like how a particular data consumer uses it.
If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:
a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the
countless other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the
way you
want.
This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control
how data
consumers use the data.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)
Hi Frederik, Thorsten
1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes
the track
in order to keep people from exercising their rights".
Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it
happened
here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal
trails.
2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken
can be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I
could equally
argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I
rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.
I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map
the polygon
but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I
could ground
truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map
women's
refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for
justifications
later.
Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle
tagging,
access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.
We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667>
There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are
rendered
similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed
We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path
#951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should
know that it
is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used"
there is
a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance
to "stay on
formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing
all the
legal trails.
Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic.
Its never
going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many
hours of
volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate
and get
deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service
respecting
OSM's consensus policy.
I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence
support
the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a
lot of
problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the
consensus position.
Tony
Hi,
On 29.10.21 09:08, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it"
rule but
you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they
exist. We
don't have to map every informal trail.
This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the
efforts
of park managers. Having said that,
1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue -
depending on the
legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path
but a
park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes
the track
in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that
situation, while the park manager might want the best for the
environment, the park manager would have to work to change the
legal
situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they
are allowed
to do.
2. In similar discussions we had people working with search
and rescue
teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the
informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got
lost,
knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be
helpful -
might even save lives.
3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about
informal
or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again,
might even
save lives.
4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for
orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or
whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is
visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count.
Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and
stress
that we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web
sites
and apps using OSM data to properly process these access tags,
by not
including access-restricted trails in routing or route
suggestions,
and by clearly marking these restrictions on maps.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
_____________________________________________________
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see
http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
<http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
