Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:37, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers
> also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area
> is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.
>
>
>
> Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many
> years and there will likely be remains of the
> closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on some
> imagery, for an extended period of time.
>
>
>
> I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the
> desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see
> those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to
> previous levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going
> there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being
> undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=*type* along
> with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the
> ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left to very
> slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow
> and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full
> rehabilitation to take place.
>

I'm fine with a new lifecycle prefix like rehabilitated where there are
visible efforts to actually rehabilitate (e.g. new plantings, levelling,
filling the track with dead trees, etc.), if there is just a track closed
sign that's not quite the same as physically it may still be perfectly
usable just legally you can't use it.

I wish park managers would see mapping it in OSM as a rehabilitated track
or closed track would help keep people off the track. Data consumers could
then build maps or provide hints or notices to their map users to indicate
such so people don't use the track naively assuming it's open for use. If
it's not mapped in OSM, unless people see the track closed signage, they
might just stumble upon it and think its overgrown and actually start
clearing and rebuilding it!
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[forster]

Thanks Phil
You put it well.

In my experience we demolish the illegal track making it impassable  
and get an undertaking from Parks Vic that they will endeavour to  
maintain it that way. We add a lifetime prefix and as a matter of   
courtesy contact the mapper . So far it works.


Tony Forster
Friends of Lysterfield Park


Hi Folks,



Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the   
tracks be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we   
should do everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks.  
 Track managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise   
people and if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation   
at the locations will help.




Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many,   
many years and there will likely be remains of the   
closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments,   
on some imagery, for an extended period of time.




I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately   
reflect the desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some  
 users may see those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the  
track and  promote use back to previous levels and they may do this  
without the  backing of the agency.




In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop   
going there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation   
being undertaken then a better tag would be   
rehabilitated:highway=type along with access=no. Many such tracks   
will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only  
and  the rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate,  
 maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow and allow   
buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full   
rehabilitation to take place.




So my view is…



*   If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*	If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately  
to  discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the   
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if   
you are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the area   
is a favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
*	Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged   
tracks do not appear on public maps




Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)



Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and   
Wildlife for many years so I am slightly biased.




From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey   
; Mark Pulley 

Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS



I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the   
rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that   
perspective I understand why not having them in a map is in their   
interests.




On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey   
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:






On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  > wrote:


I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS   
has deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers   
National Park).




These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion   
were reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.


These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a   
different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised   
below.)




I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in,   
tagged as informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in  
 which case access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do  
 we need to add a policy to the wiki for similar situations?




We have   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path   





Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for   
use, but with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have  
 signage etc.




Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no)   
- These should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM   
data for users looking for closed paths.











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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Warin]

On 22/9/23 16:37, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Hi Folks,

Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks 
be removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do 
everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track 
managers also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and 
if the area is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the 
locations will help.


Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, 
many years and there will likely be remains of the 
closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on 
some imagery, for an extended period of time.


I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect 
the desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may 
see those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use 
back to previous levels and they may do this without the backing of 
the agency.


In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop 
going there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation 
being undertaken then a better tag would be 
rehabilitated:highway=/type/ along with access=no. Many such tracks 
will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only and the 
rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with 
some occasional bars to impede water flow and allow buildup of debris. 
Again, it will take many years for full rehabilitation to take place.


So my view is…

  * If you *cant* see the track on the imagery – delete it.
  * If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to
discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if
you are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the
area is a favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
  * Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged
tracks do not appear on public maps

Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)




A path near me has a sign saying track closed... been there for quite a 
while. Some bicycle riders have taken to that track, modifying it for 
their use since that sign was put up. The sign is now being vandalized 
and will soon be gone. The sign is at the top, there is no sign at the 
bottom, the bicycle riders come down hill at speed, I like to walk up as 
it suits a circuit I do. I have removed a centre section of the track. 
In other places there are signs stating bicycle riders are to stick to 
management trails (ie for motor vehicles, not walking paths) and the 
fines are ~$3,000 ... yet to see any effort to really close that track 
nor any policing.. If they had taken action to actual close the track 
with barricades I'd have more respect and would map it as 'disused'.. 
but this is simple stupidity and I'll be leaving the path in OSM.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au