I agree that environmental preservation doesn't generally need to be in
conflict with ground truth.
If an area of a park - or tracks - is closed by land managers, tracks in
that area should be tagged accordingly.
By simply deleting tracks from OSM, mappers are more likely to add the
tracks again when they come across them. If the tracks are already in
OSM, but tagged so that they are not visible (and possibly with a note
explaining why), then it's a lot clearer why they should not be made
visible.
The vast majority of the tracks in say Blue Mountains National Park are
informal (formed by bushwalkers over time). That doesn't mean that NPWS
is going to close them. Heck, they even advertise many of them! NPWS
themselves acknowledges that they don't have the resources to maintain
even a small percentage of the tracks.
There are still some grey areas. I've occasionally avoided mapping
certain tracks because I know it will likely lead to significant impact
- hanging swamps, aboriginal sites etc.
But in general I'd map what's on the ground, as long as that's not
conflicting with a land manager policy.
cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
On 8/10/2023 10:17 pm, Ben Ritter wrote:
I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with the
addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map which
didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would likely
assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.
With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, the
existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new
one.
Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
long term for the reasons above.
Cheers,
Ben
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
