On 09/10/2023 00:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after
I sent my own saying more or less the same thing?
I cocked it up anyway - sending it from a phone as html only, so I
suspect many people (including the list archive) won't see it! For what
it's worth it said:
> The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths
and leave them removed
I'm not actually convinced that is true.
If something is visible from aerial imagery (or even something like
Strava*) then someone might "just add it" without knowing the history.
With a DWG hat on I have many times explained to people why a path that
"should not exist" has been re-added by someone unfamiliar with its status.
If there is a chance that someone will add something that shouldn't be
there for whatever reason then it makes sense to ensure that something
representing the current status is mapped. This might be some sort of
lifecycle tag such as "disused:highway=path" or if the thing really does
still exist but is private, some sort of access tag.
Best Regards,
Andy
* I certainly wouldn't map "just from Strava" myself, but unfortunately
some people do.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
