Made this, slightly tongue in cheek, comment t'other week. Turns out that they possibly do!
Just clearing a Note & noticed that the traces of these paths, https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=3942697#map=18/-32.95437/151.74519 which are tagged as disused, don't appear in Strava! https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.18/151.74460/-32.95468/hot/run Thanks Graeme On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
