Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[osm.talk-au]

If OsmAnd fundamentally misinterprets/misrepresents access tags, that's not
"disappointing", that's a critical bug that needs to be fixed ASAP.

https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/11668

Cheers,
Thorsten

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 18:01
To: Phil Wyatt ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)


On 29/10/21 10:23 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no


It does not exclude, the private ones are still there .. but rendered
differently.

Unfortunately you are correct in that access=no is the same as having no
access tag. Boo, disappointing.


>
> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)
>
>
> Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show
access... and it works.
>
>

___
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

Re: [talk-au] : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[stevea]

I'm not sure I agree with you about "restatement," nor whether these are 
analogous, nor whether guns and maps overlap like this.

People use tools (and technology, a broad "modern tool") to make wise (if they 
are wise) or foolish (if they are foolish) decisions.

Recently in the USA, managers of a very sensitive natural reserve complained 
(to OSM) that OSM's trail mapping (and subsequent rendering withOUT 
access=private or access=no tags) "gave rise" to hikers on closed and dangerous 
trails.  Trails where simply a boot trample can destroy the sensitive 
crystallizing proto-soil and where a treacherously steep (yep, up OR down!) and 
highly technical climb / descent is required, sometimes forcing rescue of what 
are essentially foolish hikers.  (Hikers who can't read a map properly, read a 
map that wasn't rendered properly, both, or more).  OSM can improve, but it 
can't be responsible for foolishness.

I'm not talking about morals, nor am I characterizing decisions of foolish 
hikers/bikers/off-road-motorcyclists... as moral (though, it seems you are) — 
maybe, in fact, they are.  I agree we want OSM to be utilitarian AND we want 
people to pay attention to [gun laws, gun safety locks, keeping guns away from 
children, map renderers, map renderings that display trails that are CLOSED to 
YOU, the hefty invoice for helicopter rescue you might find yourself receiving 
to save your life from your own stupidity...] so that tragic accidents don't 
happen.  Accidents can be prevented, certainly reduced, though most would 
agree, not to perfection (zero).  Humans engaging in foolish behavior resulting 
in accidents, well, we put the safeties in place, but you didn't pay attention. 
 And now you are upset we didn't coddle you?  Let's act like adults rather than 
expecting some nanny to take care of us.  Many (real-time, GPS-based) maps have 
warnings at boot-up time which not-always-effectively state "use your common 
sense and don't be a dork slavishly following the instructions of what is a 
software device, because software devices, including human-created databases, 
are notoriously error-prone."  There are the Darwin Awards.

How much [bad navigation where the driver plunged her car into the lake, 
senseless gun violence...] should we "pretend away" by not attributing human 
stupidity where it is due?  Devices are stupid, too, and safety, QA, 
post-mortem analysis (like in software debugging) and much else are good due 
diligence, but there is no substitute for good old responsibility.  Maps and 
guns are powerful.  Don't be stupid using them.  This is true of every single 
technology.  Though, some people might wish this away by locking up tech to be 
used only by the anointed.  OSM's first name is Open, not "provide maps (and 
guns) only to those who meet special strict controls."  Instruct and train 
users in the use of maps (and guns).  Don't make maps (and guns) more stupid or 
put them in the hands of "special people."  I want to live in a world where 
maps are "nuanced" as well, unless by that you mean "censored."  I'm not OK 
with censorship.  If you read (or even write) "samizdat" or "how to make a 
bomb" or "this is how to get to the 
totally-closed-off-to-most-humans-the-sacred-native-peoples-ceremonial-site-in-the-desert-you-must-not-visit"
 and then do something stupid with that knowledge, is it because you read a 
book or map?  No, it isn't.

Hm, maybe there is overlap.  And that means there is something to be said for 
people taking responsibility for using technology (like maps), not expecting it 
to be "closed shut."

Let's fix how people (and software, like routers) read our map, if there is 
something broken or deficient about that.  Let's not censor our map.

SteveA
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[osm.talk-au]

If there are issues with how the, correctly tagged, map is presented by data
consumers, we should be working on getting these data consumers in line, not
mangle the underlying data. 

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 19:13
To: stevea 
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

>> Displaying a closed trail on a map (like OSM) does NOT cause people  
>>  to navigate that trail.  Such behavior is completely up to the   
>> individual who "concludes" from reading said map "hey, I'm going to  
>> hike that closed trail anyway."  (Bzzzt; fail, human logic).
>>
>> OSM is not responsible for human foolishness, scofflaws or illegal   
>> (stupid, dangerous...) behavior.  You simply can't say "the map   
>> made me do it."
>>
>> On the other hand, I do hear loud and clear the "natural preserve"   
>> areas which ARE open to human recreation, DO have "closed trails"   
>> (often with fragile and easily-human-damaged natural resources) and  
>> people, stupidly and ignorantly I might say by way of being
>> candid,  decide to hike (or bike, or motorbike...) there anyway.   
>> This is  not the fault of a map, any map, including OSM.
>>
>> OSM does its best to map "what is."  Period.  It doesn't "make   
>> people" engage in activities people shouldn't engage in.  Anybody   
>> who says so hasn't got it right, but MIGHT be worth listening to at  
>> how the map can be improved.  This includes better instructions to  
>> end-users ("downstream apps...") when warranted.

Steve, this is a restatement of the "guns don't kill people people do"  
argument.
Guns and maps are not morally responsible for what people do, they are
inanimate objects. They can never be guilty.

But the issue is not whether the guns and maps are morally responsible, the
issue is what kind of world we want to live in. If we can't control what
some people will do with guns and maps and we can't, we have the choice of
making guns less available and maps not render tracks into vulnerable
ecosystems.

Its not a moral decision, its a utilitarian decision. I am very happy to
live where guns are strictly controlled. I would rather maps be more nuanced
on the implementation of the "if it exists map it" rule which does us very
well 99.999% of the time.

Tony



___
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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[forster]

Displaying a closed trail on a map (like OSM) does NOT cause people  
 to navigate that trail.  Such behavior is completely up to the   
individual who "concludes" from reading said map "hey, I'm going to  
 hike that closed trail anyway."  (Bzzzt; fail, human logic).


OSM is not responsible for human foolishness, scofflaws or illegal   
(stupid, dangerous...) behavior.  You simply can't say "the map   
made me do it."


On the other hand, I do hear loud and clear the "natural preserve"   
areas which ARE open to human recreation, DO have "closed trails"   
(often with fragile and easily-human-damaged natural resources) and  
 people, stupidly and ignorantly I might say by way of being  
candid,  decide to hike (or bike, or motorbike...) there anyway.   
This is  not the fault of a map, any map, including OSM.


OSM does its best to map "what is."  Period.  It doesn't "make   
people" engage in activities people shouldn't engage in.  Anybody   
who says so hasn't got it right, but MIGHT be worth listening to at  
 how the map can be improved.  This includes better instructions to  
 end-users ("downstream apps...") when warranted.


Steve, this is a restatement of the "guns don't kill people people do"  
argument.
Guns and maps are not morally responsible for what people do, they are  
inanimate objects. They can never be guilty.


But the issue is not whether the guns and maps are morally  
responsible, the issue is what kind of world we want to live in. If we  
can't control what some people will do with guns and maps and we  
can't, we have the choice of making guns less available and maps not  
render tracks into vulnerable ecosystems.


Its not a moral decision, its a utilitarian decision. I am very happy  
to live where guns are strictly controlled. I would rather maps be  
more nuanced on the implementation of the "if it exists map it" rule  
which does us very well 99.999% of the time.


Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[stevea]

I've said this in other contexts and places and times:

> Displaying a closed trail on a map (like OSM) does NOT cause people to 
> navigate that trail.  Such behavior is completely up to the individual who 
> "concludes" from reading said map "hey, I'm going to hike that closed trail 
> anyway."  (Bzzzt; fail, human logic).
> 
> OSM is not responsible for human foolishness, scofflaws or illegal (stupid, 
> dangerous...) behavior.  You simply can't say "the map made me do it."
> 
> On the other hand, I do hear loud and clear the "natural preserve" areas 
> which ARE open to human recreation, DO have "closed trails" (often with 
> fragile and easily-human-damaged natural resources) and people, stupidly and 
> ignorantly I might say by way of being candid, decide to hike (or bike, or 
> motorbike...) there anyway.  This is not the fault of a map, any map, 
> including OSM.
> 
> OSM does its best to map "what is."  Period.  It doesn't "make people" engage 
> in activities people shouldn't engage in.  Anybody who says so hasn't got it 
> right, but MIGHT be worth listening to at how the map can be improved.  This 
> includes better instructions to end-users ("downstream apps...") when 
> warranted.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

[iansteer]

Personally, I'm not too fussed about mapping to suit trail bikes in the bush
- they go anywhere they feel like anyway :-)  The main advantage of mapping
it as a path is that 4WDs won't get routed down them.

However, while the OSM definition for path does include the words " and not
intended for motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately".  Does "unless
tagged so separately" mean you could add the tag "motorcycles=yes" to the
path ??

I also wouldn't worry about how difficult it would be to walk or ride a
bicycle on a motor bike path - as long as it is possible for athletic &
skilled people to do so.  Even Class 5 walking tracks are classified as
paths.  There are all sorts of tags that can be used to classify the
difficulty of the "track" (that I'm not familiar with).

Ian

>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 12:39:30 +1100
>From: "EON4wd" 
>To: ,   
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails."
>   specifically motor bikes
>That would be logical, but motor bikes are classified as a vehicle and are
the only ones using this 'path' which ends up being mapped as a track via
the satellite picture.
>Path does not imply motor bikes. 
>Legally it is allowed to be used as a path, but motor vehicles are not
allowed.
>The motor bike tracks would be difficult to use as a walking track and also
for a bicycle.
>If the tracks were reclassified as a path, it would at least show something
that is on the ground plus also imply that it is not allowed for vehicles.
>What if the motor bike track is legal, how would you then classify the
track if it is not wide enough for any car?
>Thanks Ian

 


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Warin]

On 29/10/21 10:23 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote:

I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no



It does not exclude, the private ones are still there .. but rendered 
differently.


Unfortunately you are correct in that access=no is the same as having no 
access tag. Boo, disappointing.





-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National 
Park)


Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... 
and it works.




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Warin]

On 30/10/21 10:19 am, EON4wd wrote:


As part of this discussion I would like to know how to handle illegal 
motor bike tracks through the bush.


I have found that these can often be mapped as a track, as these can 
be seen clearly on a satellite photo.


They are definitely on the ground and often used every weekend, 
although there are many signs saying it is illegal.


Note that it is only illegal for motorised vehicles, walking or horses 
is OK.


These ‘tracks’ are not wide enough for a 4wd although an enthusiastic 
armchair mapper has mapped them as such, and I have been often caught out.


(I am very biased against armchair mapping for the bush. As an avid 
4wd and bush lover, it is much better that the track is not marked 
than find a track that is  marked but shouldn’t be. Fuel and time both 
need to be managed when you are a long way from a town.)


I don’t like deleting these tracks but they are not ‘management’ , it 
is illegal to use them, and they are not wide enough for a standard car.


Question – how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor 
bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn’t seem appropriate.


highway=path .. is a 'track' but not wide enough for a car/4WD. That is 
what I'd use.


Add access as appropriate.

The rest of the discussion will hopefully answer how to map an illegal 
track.


Thanks

Ian

While 'on the ground' mapping is preferable there is a lot of Australia 
and not than many mappers .. so needs must.




*From:*Dian Ågesson 
*Sent:* Friday, 29 October 2021 11:41 PM
*To:* osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
*Cc:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in 
Nerang National Park)


I think you’ve struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, 
it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think 
that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed.


It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path 
is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks 
the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn’t be 
used.


I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the 
status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It’s 
primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate 
use.


something like:

access=no

informal=yes

rehabilitation:highway=path

source:access=parks agency name

Dian

On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
 wrote:


OSM is the database.

If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be
fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise.

So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has
specified
that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with
specified modes
of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be
fixed if they
don't.

Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground
does not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map
them again,
possibly with wrong tags once more.

OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.

I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because
you don't
like how a particular data consumer uses it.

If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:

a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the
countless other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the
way you
want.

This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control
how data
consumers use the data.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>>
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org>>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)

Hi Frederik, Thorsten

1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes
the track
in order to keep people from exercising their rights".

Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it
happened
here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal
trails.

2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken
can be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I
could equally
argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I
rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as