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

Hi Mark I would not offer Parks the option of a life cycle prefix until Parks recognizes that this comes with an obligation to maintain the ex-path in a disused, deconstructed or demolished state. I don't think that Parks has to be perfect in this, the the path might be illegally

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

I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix (mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation seems to be to keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, informal=yes). Mark P. > On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan wrote: > > Given

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

Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration resource between mappers and land managers https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On