Hi,
I faced the same situation here. I sent the author a kind message,
telling this fight, even if fully justified, is not to lead via OSM but
via balnam.be (for the Wallonia part).
I got no reply, but pointing to an alternative for this justified cause
is probably something that can help the destinator to think twice about it.
For the rest, I'm afraid if someone insists misusing OSM, the only
alternative is to open a litigation...
NOTE: A few months ago, I sent a message on the current mailing for a
specific/particular case... Ways covered by cultures for a few months
every year, due to the farmers who do not respect the public area.
The conclusion was that there is clearly no ideal solution for that
case, we cannot update every path every day! => According to me, this is
an exception, based on the "common sense", to the general rule "map what
is visible". (The exception "common sens" is also part of the OSM rules!!!)
This exception is acceptable, according to me, due to its particularity.
Regards,
François (user fgerin)
On 6/08/20 08:20, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
Hi,
Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or "vicinal”
ways. By disappeared I mean they are physically absolutely not
existent on the ground. They were either plowed or constructions were
built right on them.
I believe it goes against the general rule that states that one might
only map what’s visible on the field. Additionally the mapping itself
was poorly done and the source mentioned was not relevant.
Using the tag [
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility>trail]_visibility
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility>=no
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:trail_visibility%3Dno&action=edit&redlink=1> is
not an option here since the user decided to map a unmaintained track
road (with width = 4m !) that doesn’t offer such option.
He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths
was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a discussion
about the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the
general public. He promised to delete the date once the case will be
closed.
Les sentiers et chemins que j'ai repris sur OSM sont légalement
toujours existants et personne n'est en droit d'empêcher quiconque de
les utiliser, de les réhabiliter ou de les débroussailler... c'est
une façon de mettre la pression sur le riverain... dès que des
alternatives auront été créées et un bon accord conclu, j'effacerai
les données au profit des alternatives qui auront été proposées.
The changesets :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927383
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566
What do you think ? I believe that’s not a good way of doing things (I
don’t believe in maptivism in this situation) but can’t really find a
clear position of the community about this particular case.
I don’t want to start a fight with that user because he’s really doing
a great job at preserving the right of use of those heritage vicinal
ways by confronting the Communes against those unfair owners. I would
like to show him some string arguments to explain him why his
initiative is not good for the community (If that’s the case).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Matthieu Gaillet
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
