Good point. A search led me to this discussion https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails which emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes.
Matthieu G. (en mode mobile) Matthieu G. (en mode mobile) >> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 >> <[email protected]>: >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [trail]_visibility=no 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei." >>> - Thor Heyerdahl >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> >> -- >> Joost Schouppe >> OpenStreetMap | Twitter | LinkedIn | Meetup >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
