Thanks to Pieter for the link https://www.openhistoricalmap.org
=> It deserves more visibility/publicity I think, so as to improve the
cleaning of the main OSM DB...
I'm contributing a lot to balnam too. I make use of it a lot, exactly to
ensure or recover missing paths.
Most of the time (80-90%), balnam does the job well and quickly.
For the rest, I personally contact the local public authority. In the
past, it was not efficient at all and quite discouraging... But now that
slow/sweet mobility is more and more a public topic, I noticed that many
local authorities changed their mind and quickly take actions when I
warn them about some issue.
=> Just got several good results in Andenne (usually never responding)
and Fernelmont (depending on the contact person).
My reactions to the user's comments:
*Comment 1*: Not valid, they try what they can, but they have nothing.
The trick is just a question of communication and the way to address the
point. Just got a serious case again on path 73 in Sclayn
<https://www.balnam.be/sclayn/chemin/73>, but it's the last one of a
long series, which allowed me to refine my approach.
=> Balnam is definitely the way to go, they indeed use also various
maps, including federal ones that are no more accessible to us. Also,
the local authorities have access to these maps, we still made use of
them in Andenne in July.
*Comment 2*: The IGN failure is a distinct story. Sad for them, but not
related to the topic. There are regulations, local authorities have to
comply to them. I never and will probably never make use of IGN anymore,
they're "dead" because they did not adapt to the modern reality. Even
the military guys I met in the woods of Marche-les-Dames use OSM, more
up to date...
Again, nowadays local authorities eventually comply and react, much more
than a few years ago. The best is to make use of this!
*Comment 3*: The user points himself exactly to balnam... Red lines are
very visible, much more than a simple OSM map, and make a good support
for the discussion with local authorities. Just for the demo, look at
all the paths that were suppressed in the area of Groyenne
<https://www.balnam.be/andenne/sentier/195>. The balnam layer makes it
very clear...
The main point is that balnam is based on volunteers, it's not an
official service. But here again, due to the recent changes I'm quite
convinced that things are evolving in the good direction: more and more
people use balnam, more and more local authorities face discussions on
this, more and more people contribute to surveillance... The recent
results I got were not possible a few years ago, now they are. At some
point, there will be a public service to take over balnam... That's a
good way to force a reaction. Once enough people are aware, public
figures take care of the topic, and here it's very positive.
=> If the user wishes, he can contact me: fgerin on OSM, fge1 on balnam.
++
F
On 7/08/20 13:50, Matthieu wrote:
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 <pieterv...@posteo.net
<mailto:pieterv...@posteo.net>> wrote:
Hey everyone,
Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on
OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .
The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work
together with Balnam.be <http://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
<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
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 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 <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet
<pietervdvn.vcf>
_______________________________________________
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
