Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Tom Brennan]

Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they 
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a 
map which might encourage it.

But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about 
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never 
real tracks in the first place.

As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be 
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.

Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on 
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it 
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.

Reading through the comments on the changesets, on the NPWS side, it 
seems like the local ranger(s) contact the Maps and Data team, who then 
go and delete the tracks. So the people who are making the decisions on 
the ground (the rangers) are not the same ones implementing the changes 
in OSM. This makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation because 
you're not talking to the actual decision-maker.

cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 22/09/2023 4:37 pm, Phil Wyatt 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. <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.

  



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au