Hello,
In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist
anymore. I didn't want to delete his work complete and
deleted highway=path and replaced it by historic=path and left
name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map.
Regards,
Erik
Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
Hi,
The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted
some bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now.
The user also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly.
If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user
block. A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be
that we might be forced to just revert all their work.
Best,
Joost
Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck
<wouter.hameli...@gmail.com <mailto:wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>>:
Hi,
Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims
of the mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep
vicinal ways open. I am also aware that certain ways are only
accessible certain times of the year due to vegetation etc. Even
if a path is not visible at the moment you pass there, it might be
at other times of the year. In general I advocate leaving paths
through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights of way. My
reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind of
path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way
crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put
those in OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets
that you linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to
check only one example, this is a good one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389 There is no place in
OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing the situation
on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to follow
that track. So I would say to revert changes like that.
As for the arguments of the mapper:
* Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner.
Nobody will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way
open because I just put it on a website where everybody can put
things".
* It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on
a daily basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions
in OSM makes it useless for them. They don't care where they
should be able to pass in theory. They want to know where they can
pass in reality.
In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious
advantage for his personal use and by doing that makes the data
useless for all other users. For me it is clear that those ways
should be removed.
Regards,
Wouter
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet
<matth...@gaillet.be <mailto:matth...@gaillet.be>> 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
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
--
"Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
- Thor Heyerdahl
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
--
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
