I understand what you would like the mission statement to be. But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth.
If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion. I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith. We have tags to handle this scenario. Ian On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes Ewen, I agree > > The OSM mission statement is at > https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement > > I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be > evil"* > Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere" > > Tony Forster > > > * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing†in 2015 > and finally dropped it in 2018 > > https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 > > > > > Hi all, > > A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those > protecting > > the environment over ground truth mapping. > > > > On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for > an > > outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the > > potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter > > food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In > > Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the > > Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity. > > In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist > > protection. > > > > I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it > > might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to > protect > > fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these. > > > > Ewen > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this > >> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future): > >> > >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) > >> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags > >> 3. Leave the deletion as it is. > >> > >> For this particular example, the results would be: > >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access > tags > >> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or > >> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* > >> 3. No reversion > >> > >> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I > >> wasn?t sure about the third!) > >> > >> Here?s my proposal: > >> Partial revert of ways > >> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my > >> survey in early 2022) > >> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted > >> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of > access=no > >> (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to > >> describe the reason for the access tag > >> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it > >> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this > >> area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, > but > >> hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it > >> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations > >> have previously been marked access=no e.g. > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ ) > >> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways > >> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the > >> mailing list discussion). > >> > >> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to > >> this location any time soon to do one. > >> > >> Mark P. > >> > >> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I > >> agree with Tom's take and have commented below: > >> > >> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something > >> should exist in OSM. > >> > >> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I > think > >> it should be represented with: > >> > >> - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor > >> - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths > >> - access=no because the relevant authority says so > >> > >> It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any > >> signage at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly > >> maintained or vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not > >> practical use. I would encourage the managers to ensure signage is > >> maintained, because many people won't be using OSM as their source of > truth! > >> > >> I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification > >> for the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that > it > >> can be referenced as a source. > >> > >> If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access > >> restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the > access > >> tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for > many > >> sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc. > >> > >> Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* > tag > >> that use of the track is discouraged/banned for rehabilitation. > >> Justification for reinstating the OSM features could also be documented > in > >> the notes=* tag to minimise the risk of this discussion coming up again. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Ben > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > -- > > Warm Regards > > > > Ewen Hill > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
