Nicely put, Phil! :-) Agree with everything you say.
Thanks Graeme On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:43, Phil Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > > > Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be > removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do > everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers > also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area > is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help. > > > > Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many > years and there will likely be remains of the > closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on some > imagery, for an extended period of time. > > > > I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the > desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see > those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to > previous levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency. > > > > In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going > there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being > undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=*type* along > with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the > ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left to very > slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow > and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full > rehabilitation to take place. > > > > So my view is… > > > > - If you *cant* see the track on the imagery – delete it. > - If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to > discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the managers to > actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you are concerned on > the tagging then its also likely that the area is a favourite place for > you. Work with the managers! > - Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged > tracks do not appear on public maps > > > > Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks) > > > > Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife > for many years so I am slightly biased. > > > > *From:* Sebastian S. <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM > *To:* [email protected]; Andrew Harvey <[email protected]>; > Mark Pulley <[email protected]> > *Cc:* OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS > > > > I recall these discussions vaguely. > Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers > or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I > understand why not having them in a map is in their interests. > > > > On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
