First of all : thanks all for sharing your thoughts and insight. I learned a lot. I believe that this case, which as I discovered was already discussed should be clarified and documented on the wiki, but that’s another story.
> > While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths > somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous discussions that > there is some consensus that paths that are really, really gone (there's a > building on top; or there's a lot of fences or overgrowth; it doesn't > re-appear from time to time) do not belong in OSM at all. That’s also my understanding : generally speaking ghost or historic (disappeared) objects don’t belong to OSM. The only exception I’m aware of are old (removed) railways that can be mapped but it makes sense since the space used by that railway is generally still visible. > Then again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of > the database. I do. Each time I encounter a not existent path I contact the contributor and generally end up deleting it. > You say "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." > I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in > private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some other > people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still change their > mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes. Yes, I contacted him privately. I kindly explained him (twice) that the community was largely against such kind of (poor) mapping and that he had to revert. I offered him help for his future edits (he’s novice as far as I can tell). I’m waiting for his answer. I believe there is not much more time to spend on this case which is pretty straightforward. Matthieu > > Best, > Joost > > Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <matth...@gaillet.be > <mailto:matth...@gaillet.be>>: > Good point. > > A search led me to this discussion > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails > > <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 <ebe...@gmail.com <mailto:ebe...@gmail.com>> 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 >>> <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 >>> <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/88927383>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894 >>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825 >>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566 >>> <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 >>> <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 >>> <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 <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <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
