Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration
resource between mappers and land managers
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project
cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
On 25/09/2023 10:20 am, Tom Brennan 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.
Reading through the comments on the changesets, on the NPWS side, it
seems like the local ranger(s) contact the Maps and Data team, who then
go and delete the tracks. So the people who are making the decisions on
the ground (the rangers) are not the same ones implementing the changes
in OSM. This makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation because
you're not talking to the actual decision-maker.
cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
On 22/09/2023 4:37 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Hi Folks,
Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks
be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track
managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and
if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the
locations will help.
Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many,
many years and there will likely be remains of the
closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on
some imagery, for an extended period of time.
I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect
the desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may
see those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use
back to previous levels and they may do this without the backing of
the agency.
In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop
going there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation
being undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=type
along with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation
at the ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left
to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede
water flow and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years
for full rehabilitation to take place.
So my view is…
* If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
* If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately
to discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you
are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the area is a
favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
* Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged
tracks do not appear on public maps
Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)
Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and
Wildlife for many years so I am slightly biased.
From: Sebastian S. <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: [email protected]; Andrew Harvey
<[email protected]>; Mark Pulley <[email protected]>
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the
rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that
perspective I understand why not having them in a map is in their
interests.
On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS
has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers
National Park).
These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion
were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)
I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,
tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in
which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we
need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?
We have
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use,
but with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have
signage etc.
Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) -
These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data
for users looking for closed paths.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
