Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 11:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data & > removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no. > And they or anyone else can't do that if we just delete the way completely as some are advocating here. ___ 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
In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data & removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no. Thanks Graeme On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter wrote: > >> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something >> should exist in OSM. >> >> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think >> it should be represented with: >> >>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor >>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths >>- access=no because the relevant authority says so >> >> I believe it's more nuanced than that. > > If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore > it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like > placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is > regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay" > lifecycle prefixes. > > If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's > where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no. > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley wrote: > >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this >> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future): >> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) >> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags >> 3. Leave the deletion as it is. >> >> For this particular example, the results would be: >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags >> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or >> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* >> 3. No reversion >> > > I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle > prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* > or rehabilitated:highway=*. > > If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should > capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present > that reason for the closure to users, whether that be > via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation. > > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill wrote: > >> Hi all, >> A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those >> protecting the environment over ground truth mapping. >> >> On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for >> an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the >> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter >> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In >> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the >> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity. >> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist >> protection. >> >> I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it >> might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect >> fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these. >> > > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter wrote: > >> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the >> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other. >> > > Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure, > we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are > asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the > Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway. > > >> >> In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with >> the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix. >> >> Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map >> which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would >> likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it. >> > > Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM > buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map > providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava, > I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths > which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a > conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM. > > >> >> With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, >> the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a >> new one. >> >> Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is >> being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a >> solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the >> long term for the r
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter wrote: > I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something > should exist in OSM. > > This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think > it should be represented with: > >- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor >- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths >- access=no because the relevant authority says so > > I believe it's more nuanced than that. If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay" lifecycle prefixes. If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no. On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley wrote: > A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this > particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future): > > 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) > 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags > 3. Leave the deletion as it is. > > For this particular example, the results would be: > 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags > 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or > alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* > 3. No reversion > I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*. If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation. On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill wrote: > Hi all, > A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting > the environment over ground truth mapping. > > On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for > an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the > potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter > food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In > Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the > Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity. > In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist > protection. > > I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it > might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect > fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these. > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter wrote: > I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the > ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other. > Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure, we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway. > > In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with > the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix. > > Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map > which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would > likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it. > Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava, I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM. > > With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, > the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new > one. > > Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is > being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a > solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the > long term for the reasons above. > ___ 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
I agree that environmental preservation doesn't generally need to be in conflict with ground truth. If an area of a park - or tracks - is closed by land managers, tracks in that area should be tagged accordingly. By simply deleting tracks from OSM, mappers are more likely to add the tracks again when they come across them. If the tracks are already in OSM, but tagged so that they are not visible (and possibly with a note explaining why), then it's a lot clearer why they should not be made visible. The vast majority of the tracks in say Blue Mountains National Park are informal (formed by bushwalkers over time). That doesn't mean that NPWS is going to close them. Heck, they even advertise many of them! NPWS themselves acknowledges that they don't have the resources to maintain even a small percentage of the tracks. There are still some grey areas. I've occasionally avoided mapping certain tracks because I know it will likely lead to significant impact - hanging swamps, aboriginal sites etc. But in general I'd map what's on the ground, as long as that's not conflicting with a land manager policy. cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 8/10/2023 10:17 pm, Ben Ritter wrote: I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other. In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix. Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it. With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new one. Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the long term for the reasons above. Cheers, Ben ___ 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
On 09/10/2023 00:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: & for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after I sent my own saying more or less the same thing? I cocked it up anyway - sending it from a phone as html only, so I suspect many people (including the list archive) won't see it! For what it's worth it said: > The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and leave them removed I'm not actually convinced that is true. If something is visible from aerial imagery (or even something like Strava*) then someone might "just add it" without knowing the history. With a DWG hat on I have many times explained to people why a path that "should not exist" has been re-added by someone unfamiliar with its status. If there is a chance that someone will add something that shouldn't be there for whatever reason then it makes sense to ensure that something representing the current status is mapped. This might be some sort of lifecycle tag such as "disused:highway=path" or if the thing really does still exist but is private, some sort of access tag. Best Regards, Andy * I certainly wouldn't map "just from Strava" myself, but unfortunately some people do. ___ 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
& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after I sent my own saying more or less the same thing? Thanks Graeme On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer wrote: > >> >> It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails >> from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke >> accounts of repeat trail remappers. >> > > Not disagreeing with you, Adam, but if the track has been completely > removed from OSM, then there's nothing there to say "Don't map it"! If > somebody is only looking at imagery, & can see a track going off that way, > that's not on the map, then they're likely to add it & it will immediately > reappear as a public track, whereas if it stays mapped as an abandoned > track with access=no, that won't happen. > > Thanks > > Graeme > > ___ 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
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer wrote: > > It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails > from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke > accounts of repeat trail remappers. > Not disagreeing with you, Adam, but if the track has been completely removed from OSM, then there's nothing there to say "Don't map it"! If somebody is only looking at imagery, & can see a track going off that way, that's not on the map, then they're likely to add it & it will immediately reappear as a public track, whereas if it stays mapped as an abandoned track with access=no, that won't happen. Thanks Graeme ___ 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
> The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and leave them removedI'm not actually convinced that is true.If something is visible from aerial imagery (or even something like Strava*) then someone might "just add it" without knowing the history. With a DWG hat on I have many times explained to people why a path that "should not exist" has been re-added by someone unfamiliar with its status.If there is a chance that someone will add something that shouldn't be there for whatever reason then it makes sense to ensure that something representing the current status is mapped. This might be some sort of lifecycle tag such as "disused:highway=path" or if the thing really does still exist but is private, some sort of access tag.Best Regards,Andy* I certainly wouldn't map "just from Strava" myself, but unfortunately some people do. ___ 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
Hi all What is the OSM community issue with the concept of 'do not map this it will cause harm'? OSMF and the OSM community cannot stop downstream users from using data however they like. It's open data, people may not even be aware that they need to apply specific tagging for visibility or not. The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and leave them removed. It's quite straightforward. I've worked on one project where having informal tracks visible on a map would have trashed years of advocacy work. I've also seen that if a trail appears on a map, it gets used. Others in this thread have given direct experience (ground truth if you like, or as close as anyone will get to whatever people think ground truth is) of when mapping trails leads to harm. As an open data community, mapping responsibly comes before "map all the things". This means considering that downstream users may not use data in ways we would like or expect once it is there. It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke accounts of repeat trail remappers. Because see the second sentence in this email. Also remember it costs actual dollars to keep re-remediating trails, policing usage, monitoring which mapping aps are showing trails that should not be there. So an abstract insistence on a concept which does not even exist (ground truth) is sucking up real world time and money. Which, I'd wager, could be far better spend elsewhere. With regards, Adam -- Dr Adam Steer https://iamadamsteer.com ___ 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
I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other. In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix. Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it. With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new one. Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the long term for the reasons above. Cheers, Ben On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 4:11 pm Ian Sergeant, wrote: > I understand what you would like the mission statement to be. > > But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth. > > If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion. > > I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a > genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith. > > We have tags to handle this scenario. > > Ian > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM wrote: > >> Yes Ewen, I agree >> >> The OSM mission statement is at >> https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement >> >> I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be >> evil"* >> Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere" >> >> Tony Forster >> >> >> * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing†in 2015 >> and finally dropped it in 2018 >> >> https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 >> >> >> >> > Hi all, >> > A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those >> protecting >> > the environment over ground truth mapping. >> > >> > On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits >> for an >> > outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the >> > potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter >> > food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". >> In >> > Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the >> > Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human >> activity. >> > In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist >> > protection. >> > >> > I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however >> it >> > might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to >> protect >> > fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these. >> > >> > Ewen >> > >> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley wrote: >> > >> >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just >> this >> >> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future): >> >> >> >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) >> >> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags >> >> 3. Leave the deletion as it is. >> >> >> >> For this particular example, the results would be: >> >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access >> tags >> >> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or >> >> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* >> >> 3. No reversion >> >> >> >> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I >> >> wasn?t sure about the third!) >> >> >> >> Here?s my proposal: >> >> Partial revert of ways >> >> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my >> >> survey in early 2022) >> >> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted >> >> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of >> access=no >> >> (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to >> >> describe the reason for the access tag >> >> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it >> >> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this >> >> area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, >> but >> >> hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it >> >> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations >> >> have previously been marked access=no e.g. >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ ) >> >> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways >> >> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the >> >> mailing list discussion). >> >> >> >> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back >> to >> >> this location any time soon to do one. >> >> >> >> Mark P. >> >> >> >> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter >> wrote: >> >> >> >> (I'm a lit
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
I understand what you would like the mission statement to be. But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth. If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion. I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith. We have tags to handle this scenario. Ian On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM wrote: > Yes Ewen, I agree > > The OSM mission statement is at > https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement > > I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be > evil"* > Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere" > > Tony Forster > > > * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing†in 2015 > and finally dropped it in 2018 > > https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 > > > > > Hi all, > > A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those > protecting > > the environment over ground truth mapping. > > > > On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for > an > > outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the > > potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter > > food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In > > Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the > > Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity. > > In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist > > protection. > > > > I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it > > might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to > protect > > fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these. > > > > Ewen > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley wrote: > > > >> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this > >> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future): > >> > >> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) > >> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags > >> 3. Leave the deletion as it is. > >> > >> For this particular example, the results would be: > >> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access > tags > >> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or > >> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* > >> 3. No reversion > >> > >> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I > >> wasn?t sure about the third!) > >> > >> Here?s my proposal: > >> Partial revert of ways > >> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my > >> survey in early 2022) > >> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted > >> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of > access=no > >> (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to > >> describe the reason for the access tag > >> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it > >> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this > >> area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, > but > >> hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it > >> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations > >> have previously been marked access=no e.g. > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ ) > >> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways > >> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the > >> mailing list discussion). > >> > >> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to > >> this location any time soon to do one. > >> > >> Mark P. > >> > >> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter > wrote: > >> > >> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I > >> agree with Tom's take and have commented below: > >> > >> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, > wrote: > >> > >>> Tricky one. > >>> > >>> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they > >>> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a > >>> map which might encourage it. > >>> > >>> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about > >>> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never > >>> real tracks in the first place. > >>> > >>> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be > >>> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the > >>> ground. > >>> > >>> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement > on > >>> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that > it > >>> shouldn't appear on downstream maps. > >>> > >> > >> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something > >> should exist in OSM. > >> > >> This situation is not a novel one that re
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
While 'removing it now' might seam like a good idea.. some map renders do not up date for 1 year. So some will still show what you are attempting to remove. And then if a solution is found those removals will simply have to be reverted where possible. Rather than removal how about retagging them with some thing that retains the past history .. was:highway=path for instance. I note the railway people are most resistant to the removal of railways that no longer exist ... On 8/10/23 18:29, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Yes Ewen, I agree The OSM mission statement is at https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be evil"* Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere" Tony Forster * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing†in 2015 and finally dropped it in 2018 https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 Hi all, A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting the environment over ground truth mapping. On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity. In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist protection. I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these. Ewen On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley wrote: A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future): 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags 3. Leave the deletion as it is. For this particular example, the results would be: 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* 3. No reversion So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I wasn?t sure about the third!) Here?s my proposal: Partial revert of ways Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my survey in early 2022) Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of access=no (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to describe the reason for the access tag (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, but hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations have previously been marked access=no e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ ) Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the mailing list discussion). It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to this location any time soon to do one. Mark P. On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter wrote: (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I agree with Tom's take and have commented below: On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, wrote: Tricky one. I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a map which might encourage it. But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never real tracks in the first place. As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground. Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it shouldn't appear on downstream maps. I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something should exist in OSM. This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think it should be represented with: - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths - access=no because the relevant authority says so It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly jus
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Yes Ewen, I agree The OSM mission statement is at https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement I would like to see it also include something like Google's "donât be evil"* Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere" Tony Forster * Google changed "donât be evil" to âdo the right thingâ in 2015 and finally dropped it in 2018 https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 Hi all, A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting the environment over ground truth mapping. On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity. In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist protection. I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these. Ewen On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley wrote: A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future): 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information) 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags 3. Leave the deletion as it is. For this particular example, the results would be: 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* 3. No reversion So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I wasn?t sure about the third!) Here?s my proposal: Partial revert of ways Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my survey in early 2022) Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of access=no (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to describe the reason for the access tag (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, but hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations have previously been marked access=no e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ ) Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the mailing list discussion). It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to this location any time soon to do one. Mark P. On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter wrote: (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I agree with Tom's take and have commented below: On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, wrote: Tricky one. I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a map which might encourage it. But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never real tracks in the first place. As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground. Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it shouldn't appear on downstream maps. I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something should exist in OSM. This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think it should be represented with: - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths - access=no because the relevant authority says so It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any signage at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly maintained or vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not practical use. I would encourage the managers to ensure signage is maintained, because many people won't be using OSM as their source of truth! I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification for the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it can be referenced as a source. If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access restriction, then we should
