Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
I agree David, Hence why these tracks were left just as highway=path Stephen. Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:11 PM From: "David Clark" To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks I come across similar situations quite often and you could write an essay on access to each individual trail but it's not worth it and still doesn't improve the accuracy or clarity. My opinion is that the situation is sufficiently vague enough that I wouldn't tag any specific access or restrictions. It's an interesting topic Tony I hope you're not discouraged, keep mapping. :-) David Hi all Sorry, I referred to signs and brochures as 'maps' in my last mail, yes they do contain maps which can't inform our decision, but they also contain text information which can. Tony Thanks stev391 and others for the feedback and the welcome. Re real world indications of bicycle=no, there is a lot of signage in the area indicating that only formed and signed bike trails can be used and that the creation and use of other tracks is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/a7215oibuxni7igetyr1onq7yhowfkk1 Map of authorised bike paths at Horswood Rd https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.96593/145.30346 https://app.box.com/s/v0d7q8og4qwtzp6ke43u84a9jbkkha84 Detail of above stating "Ride only on formed trails designated for cycling. Do not take shortcuts or make new trails." https://app.box.com/s/v2s8dl3q3a86gnuwlig2ez9ygsbzngif sign at cnr Logan Park Rd and Wellington Rd "Please remain on formed Management tracks only, penalties apply" https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93742/145.31140 https://app.box.com/s/t66300e74l19nr9dwsl7h9b8l25jt0bd Detail of sign "Cyclists are not permitted ... to ride on tracks... other than those designated for mountain bike riding" https://app.box.com/s/rldybfj6gfscfr3zwc7jd20tac7yho7y Detail of sign, map showing authorised trails https://app.box.com/s/wawk2d19abv5ic65h5daslgqj6xrhqut Sign at cnr Dargon Tk and Wellington Rd https://app.box.com/s/gy198r926p05g3f6wgt41hkm2p0jwswy Example of signage on authorised bike track (Dargon Track) Thanks for the photo of Ant Trail. Another at the link below https://app.box.com/s/n13xkced9ra4bv97xf1xqspl3xptnht5 Ant trail at Sunset Tk looking east It appears that this is not a "formed track" or a "designated track". The signage in the area therefore indicates that its use is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/zbdg27crru77njfsvj58proe87qj0oif A similar but unnamed track at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 Park notes http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding">Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/315693/Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP">Park-note-Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP.pdf map the authorised trails and indicate that the use of other trails is illegal. We do not always rely on on ground signage for tagging, for example footpaths would be tagged as cars=no even though there are no barriers or signs. Re the name of the trail, it is unclear how widely the name Ant Trail is known, it is not supported on the ground by eg signage. I spoke briefly with the head ranger Lysterfield last week and expect to talk again in the next 2 days and hope to get an official answer on (a) the exact legal status of these trails (b) whether Parks Vic has a position on how they should be mapped So please hold off retagging for a couple of days. Thanks Tony TONY,THANKS FOR FIRSTLY RAISING YOUR PROPOSED EDIT PRIOR TO MAKING THE CHANGE (AND ALSO WELCOME TO THE OPENSTREETMAP COMMUNITY). I HAD NOT BEEN TO THAT TRACK IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS, SO NEEDED TO REVISIT TO SEE WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND BEFORE PRESENTING MY ARGUMENT. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK ON YOURSELF AND I HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAP. I AGREE WITH BRYCE, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT BICYCLE=NO AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD TO INDICATE THAT THIS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED. SEE: HTTP://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/BICYCLEWHICH STATES WHEN USING 'BICYLCE=NO': "WHERE BICYCLES ARE NOT PERMITTED, ENSURE THIS IS INDICATED "AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BELOW REFERENCED PHOTOS, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. THE TRACK IS QUITE WELL DEFINED AND WELL USED, HERE IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE TRACK:HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/YU6LBMRK8FBJT1LPJZJLHW/PHOTO(YOU MIGHT NEED TO SCROLL OUT USING THE SCROLL WHEEL IF THE PHOTO LOOKS TOO ZOOMED IN)IN THAT SEQUENCE OF PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE THE FIRE ACCESS TRACK WHICH IS VERY UNDEFINED (JUST LOW CUT GRASS, WITH OCCASSIONAL WHEEL RUTS) AND A VERY CLEAR MTB TRACK. TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, THERE IS NO SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION OF THE FIRE TRAILS, DOES THIS MEAN IT IS NOT DEFINED AND IS NOT ALLOWED TO
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Thanks Tony for providing your images. I see those signs quite often and don't register them when I ride. https://app.box.com/s/wawk2d19abv5ic65h5daslgqj6xrhqut If this sign is to be taken literally (as in what is on the ground) the only 'formed management trail' is the Dargon Track and Lanes track and small sections of the other tracks. As the tracks are not formed, or maintained by Parks (with the exception of a lawn mow here or there for fire management purposes). Therefore all other trails including this one should have an appropriate 'access' tag that reflects this. (not specific restrictions) The long worded sign identifies that if you are not allowed to ride there is a 'no bikes' symbol is displayed. (https://app.box.com/s/t66300e74l19nr9dwsl7h9b8l25jt0bd) Similar statement here: http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf Both maps on the parks site are out of date and do not show all the signed tracks, let alone the unsigned tracks that are used my many visitors to the area. Just because it doesn't appear on a map doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm happy to wait, but I already know the response from the ranger, who doesn't want to expose himself to further liabilities. (If you could, can you ask him what regulation governs the restriction to ride a bike on an existing trails? (I know you aren't allowed to make them, but if they exist I would be interested to see the legal requirement)). Thanks. Stephen. Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:25 PM From: fors...@ozonline.com.au To: stev...@email.com Cc: talk-au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks Thanks stev391 and others for the feedback and the welcome. Re real world indications of bicycle=no, there is a lot of signage in the area indicating that only formed and signed bike trails can be used and that the creation and use of other tracks is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/a7215oibuxni7igetyr1onq7yhowfkk1 Map of authorised bike paths at Horswood Rd https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.96593/145.30346 https://app.box.com/s/v0d7q8og4qwtzp6ke43u84a9jbkkha84 Detail of above stating "Ride only on formed trails designated for cycling. Do not take shortcuts or make new trails." https://app.box.com/s/v2s8dl3q3a86gnuwlig2ez9ygsbzngif sign at cnr Logan Park Rd and Wellington Rd "Please remain on formed Management tracks only, penalties apply" https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93742/145.31140 https://app.box.com/s/t66300e74l19nr9dwsl7h9b8l25jt0bd Detail of sign "Cyclists are not permitted ... to ride on tracks... other than those designated for mountain bike riding" https://app.box.com/s/rldybfj6gfscfr3zwc7jd20tac7yho7y Detail of sign, map showing authorised trails https://app.box.com/s/wawk2d19abv5ic65h5daslgqj6xrhqut Sign at cnr Dargon Tk and Wellington Rd https://app.box.com/s/gy198r926p05g3f6wgt41hkm2p0jwswy Example of signage on authorised bike track (Dargon Track) Thanks for the photo of Ant Trail. Another at the link below https://app.box.com/s/n13xkced9ra4bv97xf1xqspl3xptnht5 Ant trail at Sunset Tk looking east It appears that this is not a "formed track" or a "designated track". The signage in the area therefore indicates that its use is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/zbdg27crru77njfsvj58proe87qj0oif A similar but unnamed track at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 Park notes http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/315693/Park-note-Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP.pdf map the authorised trails and indicate that the use of other trails is illegal. We do not always rely on on ground signage for tagging, for example footpaths would be tagged as cars=no even though there are no barriers or signs. Re the name of the trail, it is unclear how widely the name Ant Trail is known, it is not supported on the ground by eg signage. I spoke briefly with the head ranger Lysterfield last week and expect to talk again in the next 2 days and hope to get an official answer on (a) the exact legal status of these trails (b) whether Parks Vic has a position on how they should be mapped So please hold off retagging for a couple of days. Thanks Tony > TONY,THANKS FOR FIRSTLY RAISING YOUR PROPOSED EDIT PRIOR TO MAKING > THE CHANGE (AND ALSO WELCOME TO THE OPENSTREETMAP COMMUNITY). I HAD > NOT BEEN TO THAT TRACK IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS, SO NEEDED TO REVISIT TO SEE > WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND BEFORE PRESENTING MY ARGUMENT. PLEASE DO NOT > TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK ON YOURSELF AND I HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO > CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAP. I AGREE WITH BRYCE, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT > BICYCLE=NO AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD TO INDICATE THAT > THIS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED. SEE: > HTTP://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/BICYCLEWHICH STATES WHEN USING > 'BICYLCE=NO': "WHERE BICYCLES ARE
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
I come across similar situations quite often and you could write an essay on access to each individual trail but it's not worth it and still doesn't improve the accuracy or clarity. My opinion is that the situation is sufficiently vague enough that I wouldn't tag any specific access or restrictions. It's an interesting topic Tony I hope you're not discouraged, keep mapping. :-) David > Hi all Sorry, I referred to signs and brochures as 'maps' in my last > mail, yes they do contain maps which can't inform our decision, but > they also contain text information which can. Tony > >> Thanks stev391 and others for the feedback and the welcome. >> >> Re real world indications of bicycle=no, there is a lot of signage in >> the area indicating that only formed and signed bike trails can be >> used and that the creation and use of other tracks is illegal. >> >> https://app.box.com/s/a7215oibuxni7igetyr1onq7yhowfkk1 Map of >> authorised bike paths at Horswood Rd >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.96593/145.30346 >> >> https://app.box.com/s/v0d7q8og4qwtzp6ke43u84a9jbkkha84 Detail of >> above stating "Ride only on formed trails designated for cycling. Do >> not take shortcuts or make new trails." >> >> https://app.box.com/s/v2s8dl3q3a86gnuwlig2ez9ygsbzngif sign at cnr >> Logan Park Rd and Wellington Rd "Please remain on formed Management >> tracks only, penalties apply" >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93742/145.31140 >> >> https://app.box.com/s/t66300e74l19nr9dwsl7h9b8l25jt0bd Detail of sign >> "Cyclists are not permitted ... to ride on tracks... other than those >> designated for mountain bike riding" >> >> https://app.box.com/s/rldybfj6gfscfr3zwc7jd20tac7yho7y Detail of >> sign, map showing authorised trails >> >> https://app.box.com/s/wawk2d19abv5ic65h5daslgqj6xrhqut Sign at cnr >> Dargon Tk and Wellington Rd >> >> https://app.box.com/s/gy198r926p05g3f6wgt41hkm2p0jwswy Example of >> signage on authorised bike track (Dargon Track) >> >> Thanks for the photo of Ant Trail. Another at the link below >> https://app.box.com/s/n13xkced9ra4bv97xf1xqspl3xptnht5 Ant trail at >> Sunset Tk looking east >> >> It appears that this is not a "formed track" or a "designated track". >> The signage in the area therefore indicates that its use is illegal. >> >> https://app.box.com/s/zbdg27crru77njfsvj58proe87qj0oif A similar but >> unnamed track at >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 >> >> Park notes >> http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding";>Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf[1] >> http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/315693/Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP";>Park-note-Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP.pdf[2] >> map the authorised trails and indicate that the use of other trails >> is illegal. We do not always rely on on ground signage for tagging, >> for example footpaths would be tagged as cars=no even though there >> are no barriers or signs. >> >> Re the name of the trail, it is unclear how widely the name Ant Trail >> is known, it is not supported on the ground by eg signage. >> >> I spoke briefly with the head ranger Lysterfield last week and >> expect to talk again in the next 2 days and hope to get an official >> answer on >> (a) the exact legal status of these trails >> (b) whether Parks Vic has a position on how they should be mapped >> >> So please hold off retagging for a couple of days. >> >> Thanks Tony >> >> >>> TONY,THANKS FOR FIRSTLY RAISING YOUR PROPOSED EDIT PRIOR TO MAKING >>> THE CHANGE (AND ALSO WELCOME TO THE OPENSTREETMAP COMMUNITY). I HAD >>> NOT BEEN TO THAT TRACK IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS, SO NEEDED TO REVISIT TO >>> SEE WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND BEFORE PRESENTING MY ARGUMENT. PLEASE DO >>> NOT TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK ON YOURSELF AND I HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE >>> TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAP. I AGREE WITH BRYCE, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT >>> BICYCLE=NO AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD TO INDICATE THAT >>> THIS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED. SEE: >>> HTTP://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/BICYCLEWHICH STATES WHEN USING >>> 'BICYLCE=NO': "WHERE BICYCLES ARE NOT PERMITTED, ENSURE THIS IS >>> INDICATED "AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BELOW REFERENCED PHOTOS, THERE IS >>> NO INDICATION THAT THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. THE TRACK IS QUITE WELL >>> DEFINED AND WELL USED, HERE IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE TRACK:HTTP://WWW.- >>> MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/YU6LBMRK8FBJT1LPJZJLHW/PHOTO(YOU MIGHT NEED TO >>> SCROLL OUT USING THE SCROLL WHEEL IF THE PHOTO LOOKS TOO ZOOMED >>> IN)IN THAT SEQUENCE OF PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE THE FIRE ACCESS TRACK >>> WHICH IS VERY UNDEFINED (JUST LOW CUT GRASS, WITH OCCASSIONAL WHEEL >>> RUTS) AND A VERY CLEAR MTB TRACK. TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS THAT IT >>> NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, THERE IS NO SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION OF THE >>> FIRE TRAILS, DOES THIS MEAN IT IS NOT DEFINED AND IS NOT ALLOWED TO >>> BE ACCESSED?HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/ISYCXINLETHKLFXNARZWKW/- >>> PHOTO THIS TRACK APPEARS TO B
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Hi all Sorry, I referred to signs and brochures as 'maps' in my last mail, yes they do contain maps which can't inform our decision, but they also contain text information which can. Tony Thanks stev391 and others for the feedback and the welcome. Re real world indications of bicycle=no, there is a lot of signage in the area indicating that only formed and signed bike trails can be used and that the creation and use of other tracks is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/a7215oibuxni7igetyr1onq7yhowfkk1 Map of authorised bike paths at Horswood Rd https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.96593/145.30346 https://app.box.com/s/v0d7q8og4qwtzp6ke43u84a9jbkkha84 Detail of above stating "Ride only on formed trails designated for cycling. Do not take shortcuts or make new trails." https://app.box.com/s/v2s8dl3q3a86gnuwlig2ez9ygsbzngif sign at cnr Logan Park Rd and Wellington Rd "Please remain on formed Management tracks only, penalties apply" https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93742/145.31140 https://app.box.com/s/t66300e74l19nr9dwsl7h9b8l25jt0bd Detail of sign "Cyclists are not permitted ... to ride on tracks... other than those designated for mountain bike riding" https://app.box.com/s/rldybfj6gfscfr3zwc7jd20tac7yho7y Detail of sign, map showing authorised trails https://app.box.com/s/wawk2d19abv5ic65h5daslgqj6xrhqut Sign at cnr Dargon Tk and Wellington Rd https://app.box.com/s/gy198r926p05g3f6wgt41hkm2p0jwswy Example of signage on authorised bike track (Dargon Track) Thanks for the photo of Ant Trail. Another at the link below https://app.box.com/s/n13xkced9ra4bv97xf1xqspl3xptnht5 Ant trail at Sunset Tk looking east It appears that this is not a "formed track" or a "designated track". The signage in the area therefore indicates that its use is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/zbdg27crru77njfsvj58proe87qj0oif A similar but unnamed track at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 Park notes http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/315693/Park-note-Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP.pdf map the authorised trails and indicate that the use of other trails is illegal. We do not always rely on on ground signage for tagging, for example footpaths would be tagged as cars=no even though there are no barriers or signs. Re the name of the trail, it is unclear how widely the name Ant Trail is known, it is not supported on the ground by eg signage. I spoke briefly with the head ranger Lysterfield last week and expect to talk again in the next 2 days and hope to get an official answer on (a) the exact legal status of these trails (b) whether Parks Vic has a position on how they should be mapped So please hold off retagging for a couple of days. Thanks Tony TONY,THANKS FOR FIRSTLY RAISING YOUR PROPOSED EDIT PRIOR TO MAKING THE CHANGE (AND ALSO WELCOME TO THE OPENSTREETMAP COMMUNITY). I HAD NOT BEEN TO THAT TRACK IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS, SO NEEDED TO REVISIT TO SEE WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND BEFORE PRESENTING MY ARGUMENT. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK ON YOURSELF AND I HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAP. I AGREE WITH BRYCE, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT BICYCLE=NO AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD TO INDICATE THAT THIS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED. SEE: HTTP://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/BICYCLEWHICH STATES WHEN USING 'BICYLCE=NO': "WHERE BICYCLES ARE NOT PERMITTED, ENSURE THIS IS INDICATED "AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BELOW REFERENCED PHOTOS, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. THE TRACK IS QUITE WELL DEFINED AND WELL USED, HERE IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE TRACK:HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/YU6LBMRK8FBJT1LPJZJLHW/PHOTO(YOU MIGHT NEED TO SCROLL OUT USING THE SCROLL WHEEL IF THE PHOTO LOOKS TOO ZOOMED IN)IN THAT SEQUENCE OF PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE THE FIRE ACCESS TRACK WHICH IS VERY UNDEFINED (JUST LOW CUT GRASS, WITH OCCASSIONAL WHEEL RUTS) AND A VERY CLEAR MTB TRACK. TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, THERE IS NO SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION OF THE FIRE TRAILS, DOES THIS MEAN IT IS NOT DEFINED AND IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED?HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/ISYCXINLETHKLFXNARZWKW/PHOTO THIS TRACK APPEARS TO BE QUITE POPULAR ACCORDING TO THE STRAVA SEGMENTS:HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483327 (SOUTHBOUND)HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483306 (NORTHBOUND)THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE TRACK HAS EXISTED IN THE REAL WORLD FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS, BEING USED AS A BICYCLE TRACK. I ALSO REFER YOU TO THIS OSM WIKI PAGE:HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/HOW_WE_MAPWHICH CLEARLY STATES "WHEN IN DOUBT, ALSO CONSIDER THE "ON THE GROUND RULE": MAP THE WORLD AS IT CAN BE OBSERVED BY SOMEONE PHYSICALLY THERE."(SIMILAR WORDING APPEARS HERE: HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/DISPUTES) I PROPOSE THAT USER TONYF1'S EDIT SHOULD BE REVERTED AS:1) THE TRACK IS THERE AND MORE WELL DEFINED THAN OTHER FEATURES IN THE AREA.2) OSM IS A MAP OF WHAT IS IN THE WOR
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Thanks stev391 and others for the feedback and the welcome. Re real world indications of bicycle=no, there is a lot of signage in the area indicating that only formed and signed bike trails can be used and that the creation and use of other tracks is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/a7215oibuxni7igetyr1onq7yhowfkk1 Map of authorised bike paths at Horswood Rd https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.96593/145.30346 https://app.box.com/s/v0d7q8og4qwtzp6ke43u84a9jbkkha84 Detail of above stating "Ride only on formed trails designated for cycling. Do not take shortcuts or make new trails." https://app.box.com/s/v2s8dl3q3a86gnuwlig2ez9ygsbzngif sign at cnr Logan Park Rd and Wellington Rd "Please remain on formed Management tracks only, penalties apply" https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93742/145.31140 https://app.box.com/s/t66300e74l19nr9dwsl7h9b8l25jt0bd Detail of sign "Cyclists are not permitted ... to ride on tracks... other than those designated for mountain bike riding" https://app.box.com/s/rldybfj6gfscfr3zwc7jd20tac7yho7y Detail of sign, map showing authorised trails https://app.box.com/s/wawk2d19abv5ic65h5daslgqj6xrhqut Sign at cnr Dargon Tk and Wellington Rd https://app.box.com/s/gy198r926p05g3f6wgt41hkm2p0jwswy Example of signage on authorised bike track (Dargon Track) Thanks for the photo of Ant Trail. Another at the link below https://app.box.com/s/n13xkced9ra4bv97xf1xqspl3xptnht5 Ant trail at Sunset Tk looking east It appears that this is not a "formed track" or a "designated track". The signage in the area therefore indicates that its use is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/zbdg27crru77njfsvj58proe87qj0oif A similar but unnamed track at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 Park notes http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/315693/Park-note-Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP.pdf map the authorised trails and indicate that the use of other trails is illegal. We do not always rely on on ground signage for tagging, for example footpaths would be tagged as cars=no even though there are no barriers or signs. Re the name of the trail, it is unclear how widely the name Ant Trail is known, it is not supported on the ground by eg signage. I spoke briefly with the head ranger Lysterfield last week and expect to talk again in the next 2 days and hope to get an official answer on (a) the exact legal status of these trails (b) whether Parks Vic has a position on how they should be mapped So please hold off retagging for a couple of days. Thanks Tony TONY,THANKS FOR FIRSTLY RAISING YOUR PROPOSED EDIT PRIOR TO MAKING THE CHANGE (AND ALSO WELCOME TO THE OPENSTREETMAP COMMUNITY). I HAD NOT BEEN TO THAT TRACK IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS, SO NEEDED TO REVISIT TO SEE WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND BEFORE PRESENTING MY ARGUMENT. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK ON YOURSELF AND I HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAP. I AGREE WITH BRYCE, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT BICYCLE=NO AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD TO INDICATE THAT THIS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED. SEE: HTTP://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/BICYCLEWHICH STATES WHEN USING 'BICYLCE=NO': "WHERE BICYCLES ARE NOT PERMITTED, ENSURE THIS IS INDICATED "AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BELOW REFERENCED PHOTOS, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. THE TRACK IS QUITE WELL DEFINED AND WELL USED, HERE IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE TRACK:HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/YU6LBMRK8FBJT1LPJZJLHW/PHOTO(YOU MIGHT NEED TO SCROLL OUT USING THE SCROLL WHEEL IF THE PHOTO LOOKS TOO ZOOMED IN)IN THAT SEQUENCE OF PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE THE FIRE ACCESS TRACK WHICH IS VERY UNDEFINED (JUST LOW CUT GRASS, WITH OCCASSIONAL WHEEL RUTS) AND A VERY CLEAR MTB TRACK. TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, THERE IS NO SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION OF THE FIRE TRAILS, DOES THIS MEAN IT IS NOT DEFINED AND IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED?HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/ISYCXINLETHKLFXNARZWKW/PHOTO THIS TRACK APPEARS TO BE QUITE POPULAR ACCORDING TO THE STRAVA SEGMENTS:HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483327 (SOUTHBOUND)HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483306 (NORTHBOUND)THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE TRACK HAS EXISTED IN THE REAL WORLD FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS, BEING USED AS A BICYCLE TRACK. I ALSO REFER YOU TO THIS OSM WIKI PAGE:HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/HOW_WE_MAPWHICH CLEARLY STATES "WHEN IN DOUBT, ALSO CONSIDER THE "ON THE GROUND RULE": MAP THE WORLD AS IT CAN BE OBSERVED BY SOMEONE PHYSICALLY THERE."(SIMILAR WORDING APPEARS HERE: HTTPS://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/DISPUTES) I PROPOSE THAT USER TONYF1'S EDIT SHOULD BE REVERTED AS:1) THE TRACK IS THERE AND MORE WELL DEFINED THAN OTHER FEATURES IN THE AREA.2) OSM IS A MAP OF WHAT IS IN THE WORLD, NOT WHAT COPYRIGHTED MAPS HAVE STATED.3) THIS IS A COMMONLY USED MOUNTAIN BIKE TRACK, WITH A RECOGNISED NAME.4) BICYCLE=NO REQUIRES THIS TO BE INDICATED IN TH
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Agree with most things you said Stev... But for the copyright map thing. 'We' should not be using copyright maps for anything in OSM. I do use copyright maps .. usually for planning trips ... along with OSM or course. Once the trip is completed I use my trip generated knowledge to add/improve to OSM. This complies with the 'on the ground' guide. And that guide should override other things. Before reverting tonyf1's edit he should be contacted through OSM, this can avoid edit wars, clarify why things are done and lead to better understanding of what to do. On 9/08/2015 9:41 PM, stev...@email.com wrote: Tony, Thanks for firstly raising your proposed edit prior to making the change (and also welcome to the OpenStreetMap community). I had not been to that track in about 6 months, so needed to revisit to see what was on the ground before presenting my argument. Please do not take this as an attack on yourself and I hope that you continue to contribute to the map. I agree with Bryce, it is definitely not bicycle=no as there is nothing in the real world to indicate that this not allowed to be accessed. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle Which states when using 'bicylce=no': "Where bicycles are not permitted, ensure this is indicated " As you can see in the below referenced photos, there is no indication that this is not permitted. The track is quite well defined and well used, here is some photos of the track: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/yu6LbmrK8FbjT1lPJzJlHw/photo (you might need to scroll out using the scroll wheel if the photo looks too zoomed in) In that sequence of photos you can see the fire access track which is very undefined (just low cut grass, with occassional wheel ruts) and a very clear mtb track. To counter the arguments that it needs to be signed, there is no sign at this intersection of the fire trails, does this mean it is not defined and is not allowed to be accessed? http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/isYcxInLeTHkLFxNArzwkw/photo This track appears to be quite popular according to the Strava segments: https://www.strava.com/segments/5483327 (Southbound) https://www.strava.com/segments/5483306 (Northbound) This also shows that the track has existed in the real world for at least 2 years, being used as a bicycle track. I also refer you to this OSM wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map Which clearly states "When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there." (Similar wording appears here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes) I propose that user tonyf1's edit should be reverted as: 1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area. 2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated. 3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track, with a recognised name. 4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world. Happy to hear counter positions, based on OSM principles, not what someone (park ranger) said to limit their legal liability. Stephen. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
Tony, Thanks for firstly raising your proposed edit prior to making the change (and also welcome to the OpenStreetMap community). I had not been to that track in about 6 months, so needed to revisit to see what was on the ground before presenting my argument. Please do not take this as an attack on yourself and I hope that you continue to contribute to the map. I agree with Bryce, it is definitely not bicycle=no as there is nothing in the real world to indicate that this not allowed to be accessed. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle Which states when using 'bicylce=no': "Where bicycles are not permitted, ensure this is indicated " As you can see in the below referenced photos, there is no indication that this is not permitted. The track is quite well defined and well used, here is some photos of the track: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/yu6LbmrK8FbjT1lPJzJlHw/photo (you might need to scroll out using the scroll wheel if the photo looks too zoomed in) In that sequence of photos you can see the fire access track which is very undefined (just low cut grass, with occassional wheel ruts) and a very clear mtb track. To counter the arguments that it needs to be signed, there is no sign at this intersection of the fire trails, does this mean it is not defined and is not allowed to be accessed? http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/isYcxInLeTHkLFxNArzwkw/photo This track appears to be quite popular according to the Strava segments: https://www.strava.com/segments/5483327 (Southbound) https://www.strava.com/segments/5483306 (Northbound) This also shows that the track has existed in the real world for at least 2 years, being used as a bicycle track. I also refer you to this OSM wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map Which clearly states "When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there." (Similar wording appears here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes) I propose that user tonyf1's edit should be reverted as: 1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the area. 2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps have stated. 3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track, with a recognised name. 4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world. Happy to hear counter positions, based on OSM principles, not what someone (park ranger) said to limit their legal liability. Stephen. Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 at 10:51 AM From: "Bryce Nesbitt" To: fors...@ozonline.com.au Cc: talk-au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks It physically exists, and therefore I view it as legitimate in OSM. But access=no is not quite the right twist on things. It really belongs to a much larger category of unofficial things: from rope swings to campgrounds to fruit trees, that people build without the permission of the landowner. I often want to know the difference. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
