Hi Mark
I would not offer Parks the option of a life cycle prefix until Parks
recognizes that this comes with an obligation to maintain the ex-path
in a disused, deconstructed or demolished state. I don't think that
Parks has to be perfect in this, the the path might be illegally
reopened from time to time but the life cycle prefix should be
representative of the path's average state.
Tony
I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix
(mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the
recommendation seems to be to keep the tags as they are now
(access=discouraged, informal=yes).
Mark P.
On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29?pm, Tom Brennan <[email protected]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
