Thanks for these clarifications. The user agreed to revert, not without explaining why he still believes that the ways should be mapped. I quote him below for the completeness. I advised him to use balsam (ironically he *IS* a balnam volunteer !), will refer it to OHM too.
> Le premier réflexe qu'a un accapareur lorsqu'il est confronté à des autorités > communales est le plus souvent d'indiquer que la voirie n'existe même pas sur > carte, le deuxième sera de dire qu'elle n'est pas visible sur les photos > aériennes..... > Bref, je crois qu'on est pas du tout sur la même longueur d'onde et je le > regrette. > Pour la petite histoire, un nombre important de voiries ont disparu suite au > fait qu'elles n'étaient plus reprises sur l'IGN (souvent par négligence des > géographes de terrain) > La voirie que vous voulez pouvoir utiliser sans que le propriétaire du manège > ne vous interpelle est un voirie innomée sans véritable statut tant qu'elle > n'a pas été reconnue comme communale par la commune (procédure longue et > difficile, actuellement rarement mise en oeuvre). C'est une voirie privée. > Pour tenter de la rendre communale, la méthode la plus souvent utilisée est > d'indiquer au riverain toutes les voiries qui ont disparues (qu'il a volé), > cette disposition permet de "culpabiliser" l'accapareur qui, bien souvent, > accepte par la suite certaines concessions. > Je m'incline et j'enlève d'OSM les voiries publiques accaparées autour des > Hayettes. > Matthieu > On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:44, Pieter Vander Vennet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on > OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ > <https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/> . > > The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work together with > Balnam.be (in Wallonia) or Trage Wegen VZW (for Flanders). They have > this kind of experience and they know which historical sources to use (such > as the 'atlas trage buurtwegen' and a whole heap of different maps). > > Even though I sympathise deeply with the contributor, OSM is not a place for > razed paths - it clutters the database too much and it becomes very unclear > what is in scope for OSM. Do we map razed buildings too? When do we delete > them? When they are razed 5yrs ago? 10yrs ago? 100yrs ago? Again, all these > are welcome in OpenHistoricalMap, where there is some support by giving > end-dates. > > To touch on the topic of Wegspotter - he too mapped a lot of razed roads > which frustrated many within the community. Due to some stupid techical > issue, it took a long time before the community could get in touch with him. > Once we finally got in touch, we could synchronize and align. > > Kind regards, Pieter > > On 07.08.20 08:53, joost schouppe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 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. Then >> again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of the >> database. >> >> When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual highway >> type, then they should be stopped. >> >> Mathieu, >> 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. >> >> Best, >> Joost >> >> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 >>>> <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] >>>> <mailto:[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 [ >>>> <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 >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> 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 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > -- > Met vriendelijke groeten, > Pieter Vander Vennet > <pietervdvn.vcf>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
