[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

I strongly prefer highway=path over highway=footway. Most "paths" that get tagged as footways are not signed to say that bicycles are NOT permitted - hence bicycles ARE permitted. Hence, if a path is tagged as a footway, you then need to go and add a 2nd tag "bicycle=yes" - otherwise routers

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

‘Greater >> Hobart’ as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it >> in a ‘park’ of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets >> >> >> >> *From:* Andrew Harvey >> *Sent:* Friday, 28 January 2022 10:25 AM >> *To:* Phil

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 09:34, Phil Wyatt wrote: > It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater > Hobart’ as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it > in a ‘park’ of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets > I must admit to having recently

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Forster ; talk OSM Australian List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path, 10% footway. On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote: Mmm, certainly bikes are

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian List' > > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths > > Hi > > Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit > prohibition of bicycles. > > But I could be wrong > > Tony >

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths >> Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park > It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway? No, Phil's query works for me, there is very little footway so its hard to see at low zoom. I changed the colours from red a

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

January 2022 8:22 AM To: Phil Wyatt Cc: fors...@ozonline.com.au; talk OSM Australian List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:35, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote: Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park It al

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway? No, Phil's query works for me, there is very little footway so its hard to see at low zoom. I changed the colours from red and orange to blue and green and its a bit better Tony

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:35, Phil Wyatt wrote: > Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

' Subject: RE: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths > Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified > as vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') Hi This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User who wanted to tag all foo

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') Hi This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User who wanted to tag all footpaths in Victoria with bicycle=no and the community consensus was that

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM To: Phil Wyatt Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian List' Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths Hi Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit prohibition of bicycles

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM To: talk OSM Australian List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote: Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use do not us

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

across the network. I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country. Cheers - Phil From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM To: talk OSM Australian List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt wrote: > Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do > not use highway =footway > and the > preference is highway

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

wastra nwastra ; Phil Wyatt Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote: Hi Folks, I agree that a good discussion is useful but at the same time the OSM community needs to understan

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

ra nwastra ; Phil Wyatt Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote: Hi Folks, I agree that a good discussion is useful but at the same time the OSM community needs to understand what a hassle

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On 26/1/22 10:04, Andy Townsend wrote: On 25/01/2022 22:43, David Wales via Talk-au wrote: 2. Practically invisible on the ground, except for bits of red tape hanging from tree branches every 50-100 metres! Every 50-100 meters?  Luxury! :) My recollection is that the signage on the bits of

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

RE: > Are the issues any different for motor vehicles and cyclists? The frequency > and severity are different, the reference photos are different but I would > expect the issues and principles to be the same. Maybe just have a single > page about tracks? Hi Tony, yes, I agree, most issues

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

thanks for compiling the walking tracks page ... It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages for walking tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep coming up on the forum. Good idea, ... Vehicle tracks should be less controversial and easier. MTB paths is

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On 25/01/2022 22:43, David Wales via Talk-au wrote: 2. Practically invisible on the ground, except for bits of red tape hanging from tree branches every 50-100 metres! Every 50-100 meters?  Luxury! :) My recollection is that the signage on the bits of the Bibbulmun Track near Denmark in WA

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

In my area there are walks which are: 1. In a published local guide 2. Practically invisible on the ground, except for bits of red tape hanging from tree branches every 50-100 metres! 3. Definitely unofficial I've traced them from my personal GPX recordings, and named them according to the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:22, Little Maps wrote: > Hi Andrew, thanks for compiling the walking tracks page, it’s a great > resource. It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages > for walking tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep > coming up on the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Hi Andrew, thanks for compiling the walking tracks page, it’s a great resource. It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages for walking tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep coming up on the forum. I think the section “why shouldn’t closed tracks

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note... Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail difficulty in an Australian context? Personally, I hate the idea, because: - Australia has little in the way of real mountains - the values bear no relevance to

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

To: talk OSM Australian List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 16:08, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote: “off-track” here implies trail_visibility=no. If it’s NOT visible on the ground. And it’s NOT part of any signed

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 16:08, wrote: > “off-track” here implies trail_visibility=no. > > > > If it’s NOT visible on the ground. And it’s NOT part of any signed route. > Then it doesn’t meet the verifiability criteria and shouldn’t be mapped. > Exactly, I've just added the term bush-bashing to

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Australian List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths Off-track when not part of an official walking route Walking routes off-track without any signage or official route. Should not be mapped in OSM at all, or if they are controversially edited consider

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

> On 25 Jan 2022, at 2:46 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 00:11, Josh Marshall > wrote: > my searching led me to put these tags on a certain walking path: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403832368#map=16/-32.5573/152.2856 >

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

on the OSM database, as long as the information in the database is correct and detailed enough for data consumers to make correct decisions. Cheers, Thorsten From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2022 12:04 To: Tom Brennan Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 12:59, Tom Brennan wrote: > I was somewhat bemused by the comment: > "As Ranger of Macquarie Pass National Park (New South Wales, Australia) > I am writing to advise that these tracks either do not exist or are > illegal tracks, which have been closed based on a risk

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 00:11, Josh Marshall wrote: > There were also some trails earlier in my ride that were closed, and in > the interest of not-self-incriminating I would certainly not admit to > attempting to traverse them or getting somewhat lost and trekking through > swamp in the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 13:48, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hi all, > > When this issue was last raised on the mailing list, I suggested the > following tagging schema. > >- highway=rehabilitation >- access=no >- informal=yes >- rehabilitation:highway=path >- source:access=parks

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Hi all, When this issue was last raised on the mailing list, I suggested the following tagging schema. * highway=rehabilitation * access=no * informal=yes * rehabilitation:highway=path * source:access=parks agency name As has already been raised,

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 11:26, Tom Brennan wrote: > > If the tracks were kept in OSM, but tagged appropriately so as not to > appear in the rendering, & this is the big thing. Rendering needs to show that this track shouldn't be used. Maybe access=no gets a big red X across each entrance to say

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

I was somewhat bemused by the comment: "As Ranger of Macquarie Pass National Park (New South Wales, Australia) I am writing to advise that these tracks either do not exist or are illegal tracks, which have been closed based on a risk assessment and legal advice following a serious incident.

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On 24/01/2022 5:22 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote: I actually favour deletion as well but understand that is not the 'OSM way of doing things'. A full discussion may help the agency, and OSM contributors understand the issues on both sides. The issue with simply deleting them is that someone will no doubt

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 21:23, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I would rather they be left in the OSM and tagged in a different way for >> various reasons > > > >> but I expect we have little choice but to accept the NPWS decision. >> > > Quite the opposite, NPWS has little choice but to accept the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 21:59, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > Inspired by the US trails group work, I thought maybe we can attempt > something localised for Australia. > Great idea! > I started sketching something out at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks. If anyone >

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Thanks for putting that effort in, Andrew. I've played devil's advocate and added the reasons "why not" to your page: really it all concerns bad or rather, incomplete, rendering choices. This is actually on my mind right now, as this Saturday passed I rode from Forster to Newcastle via the paths

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I agree that a good discussion is useful but at the same time the OSM > community needs to understand what a hassle it can be to have these tracks > in OSM and having no, or little, control on how any other app/web interface > may

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

can be very different across countries (especially legally). Cheers - Phil -Original Message- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au Sent: Monday, 24 January 2022 4:53 PM To: nwastra nwastra Cc: talk OSM Australian List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths Hi Nev I am

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Hi Nev I am encouraged by Guy's response. If Parks NSW can be persuaded to funnel all/most such map changes through one person like Guy it could be good. Invite him to join talk-au so he can understand why illegal tracks are such a difficult problem for Parks and OSM. Eventually it

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

I would have thought that may have been better being sent to DWG for action, rather than a bloke from NPWS signing up an account to just go in & delete stuff? Andrew? Thanks Graeme On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 15:12, nwastra nwastra wrote: > For info and with some regard to recent discussion of

[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

For info and with some regard to recent discussion of US Trails Working Group… I noticed a lot of paths being deleted by this user as requested by a National Park Ranger. I commented with some suggestions and received the following reply in comments...