In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data & removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
Thanks Graeme On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> I believe it's more nuanced than that. > > If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore > it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like > placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is > regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay" > lifecycle prefixes. > > If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's > where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no. > > > > 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 >> > > I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle > prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* > or rehabilitated:highway=*. > > If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should > capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present > that reason for the closure to users, whether that be > via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation. > > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the >> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other. >> > > Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure, > we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are > asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the > Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway. > > >> >> 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. >> > > Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM > buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map > providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava, > I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths > which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a > conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM. > > >> >> 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. >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
