On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <mrpul...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has > deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National > Park). > > These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were > reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year. > These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a > different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.) > > I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as > informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case > access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a > policy to the wiki for similar situations? > We have https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths> Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc. Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) - These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for users looking for closed paths.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
