I think that if there has been *active* measures to rehabilitate the track (eg "brushing over", track closed signs *and* barricades, then fair-enough, delete/make invisible the track.
But if the land owner is not making much effort, we should map what's on the ground. Ian > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 23:25:02 +1000 > From: Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > To: Mark Pulley <mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS > Message-ID: > <CAD5Vjsvz2EDa89kSzo9C4Yy_99z1E_NB=6NjSRhf4v4- > jeo...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk- > au/attachments/20230921/a752981a/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:32:16 +1000 > From: "Sebastian S." <mapp...@consebt.de> > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, Andrew Harvey > <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>, Mark Pulley <mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS > Message-ID: <def34332-86e5-44fa-b3f1-ecc110163...@consebt.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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 > <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > >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/Cycli > >ng_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path > ><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycl > >ing_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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk- > au/attachments/20230922/3cec4504/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 16:37:01 +1000 > From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com> > To: "'Sebastian S.'" <mapp...@consebt.de>, > <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>, "'Andrew Harvey'" > <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>, "'Mark Pulley'" > <mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > Cc: "'OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List'" <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS > Message-ID: <004b01d9ed1f$36833d80$a389b880$@wyatt-family.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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. <mapp...@consebt.de> > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey > <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>; Mark Pulley <mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > 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 > <andrew.harv...@gmail.com <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <mrpul...@iinet.net.au > <mailto: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. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk- > au/attachments/20230922/14f1a029/attachment.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 195, Issue 2 > *************************************** _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
