Hi Mateusz
Are there nature reserves in Australia with rules "no access allowed
unless signed otherwise"
There are parks where access is limited to authorised tracks. You are
not allowed off track. The authorised tracks are indicated by
signposts and a copyright map. But I don't know the
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 13:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> In regard to access=no, & following along from my mention of Uluru, a
> similar point comes up about Mt Warning. The local Aboriginal people would
> prefer that no-one climb the Mountain, but it is still legally open for all
> to do so.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 15:49, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
>
> 24 Oct 2020, 00:34 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>
> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
> installing signage everywhere, why
24 Oct 2020, 00:34 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
> authorise everywhere
Hi Folks,
For Tasmania all the tracks that are permitted on ‘public maps’ are available
in the transport layer and tagged with the AS2156 walking track standard
https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/opendata/
The routes, pads, known walking destination data that is known to managing
Thanks all for the discussion. I can see there will be further separate
discussion around the OSM mapping of landowner-unsanctioned tracks/paths.
Back to my original post which I was seeking advice on, I was requesting
clarity of mapping an official hiking route, which a small section of it
Hey Greg,
I agree we shouldn't tag for the renderer. Have you looked at lifecycle
tags such as was:highway=path? A lifecycle prefix like this does a good job
with Carto, OsmAnd, and other renderers and not using those former (formal
or informal) paths for browsing or routing by end users. However
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Little Maps wrote:
> what text should we add to the Australian Tagging Guidelines, which give
> no guidance on the matter?
>
We do have guidelines concerning sacred sites
Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24, wrote:
> Hi Andrew
> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per
Quoting Andrew Harvey :
It's just after hearing park authorities raise concerns about us showing
un-authorised tracks on OSM, my reaction is usually how are we or anyone
supposed to know which tracks are authorised and which aren't unless there
is signage to indicate that.
Hi Andrew
Trail
hey all
Very late to the conversation - and responding to concerns way back when
there were only a few replies - relating specifically to the AAWT and
similar 'untracked' areas, and veering a little onto the terrain of illicit
(or pseudo illicit) trails:
I back Phil and Tony's view here, because
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 19:21, wrote:
> Andrew
> Thanks, I hadn't considered life cycle prefixes. There might be
> problems with disused or abandoned if those reopening the trails
> argued that they used the trail last week so it was neither disused
> nor abandoned.
>
I can see the issue, but
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 21:51, wrote:
> Hi Andrew
>
> I am intrigued by your suggestion of lifecycle.
>
> For a mountain bike trail thats just had its berms and jumps dug out
> and scattered and lots and lots of branches dragged across it and a
> sign put up at the head about the construction and
Hi Andrew
I am intrigued by your suggestion of lifecycle.
For a mountain bike trail thats just had its berms and jumps dug out
and scattered and lots and lots of branches dragged across it and a
sign put up at the head about the construction and use of illegal trails
Is there a suitable
Hi folks, thanks for a very interesting discussion. It was great to hear from
people who don’t often pipe up on the forum. Whilst it started off informative
and insightful, it didn’t take long to reach into rhetoric about Russia and
guns/maps don’t kill people ... neither of which is
23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the
> Don'tRender tag
> 'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?
>
Technically it is possible but it would require licensechange that would be
problematic
Thanks Mateusz
Women's refuges were mentioned as an example, an extreme one, that
illustrated certain principles, not because they weren't already being
handled well. Thanks for the information on mapping private
information but I think the discussion around refuges still stands.
'Any
An illegal track in a national park is likely to be one that is cut without the
authority of the managing agency. It’s a fairly regular occurrence and often
the start of increased impacts in ares that may be reserved for conservation
rather than recreation.
Cheers - Phil,
On the road with
Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a women's
> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the process. And it
> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at the door because I
> have mapped a
On 23/10/20 3:38 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
You could also find (shock, horror!) that that tag has been used for
rendering purposes.
Or, even more shockingly, the tag has been used because they are nature
reserves.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Thanks Steve, Andrew and Graeme for your replies.
Steve says "maps don't make people do foolish things, foolish people do"
Steve, I guess we are all here because we strongly believe in open
data, I would very much prefer if we could map the world exactly as we
find it.
Your argument is
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 16:08, wrote:
> I am writing as someone who does voluntary work for a Parks Service. I
> have personal experience with the loop: people use a path because its
> mapped, the path is mapped because it exists because people use it
>
> It takes an enormous amount of work
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 15:10, wrote:
>
> I can think of a few cases where the land owner or manager might not
> want some features mapped.
Is there anything built into OSM that somebody can request "this" spot /
area not be mapped? I know that G Maps has that feature.
I am not saying we
Note: we do have important tags like access=no / access=private that I
consider a super-important tag to include on things like closed trails. “A
trail IS here, but this trail is CLOSED to you.” That’s good mapping, in my
opinion.
SteveA
___
Whoops, 11.5 years.
SteveA
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Perhaps I am out of bounds as a just-joined-this-list-today guy-from-the-USA.
But. (I have had similar conversations before in OSM and Ive been a volunteer
here for 12.5 years).
I have mixed feelings when people say OSM shouldn’t map real things in the real
world. I see the argument for
27 matches
Mail list logo
