Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." specifically motor bikes

With the caveat that the access tags should reflect legal basis of access, not physical suitability or actual usage. If the path in question is not legally allowed for motorcycle, then don’t tag motorcycle=yes, even if it’s physically possible and people (illegally) use it that way. If

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." specifically motor bikes

I would have thought highway=track would have been good, but that page is quite adamant that a "track" is for 4-wheel vehicles, & anything smaller is supposed to be a highway=path. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrack#use_for_narrow_paths They also say that specifying

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." specifically motor bikes

That would be logical, but motor bikes are classified as a vehicle and are the only ones using this 'path' which ends up being mapped as a track via the satellite picture. Path does not imply motor bikes. Legally it is allowed to be used as a path, but motor vehicles are not allowed. The motor

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

A somewhat related question that I asked a while ago, is what do you do about "home-made" BMX tracks in a patch of bush? cycle track + informal? Thanks Graeme On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 10:16, wrote: > I’ve always mapped a track that’s not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path. > > > > Ian > > >

[talk-au] Update on South Australian Road Classifications.

Hi all, I have reviewed portions of 1998 changesets that had new roads added in South Australia at the time with only a handful of non-commercial editors creating highways. Of 2673 new highways extracted by Overpass that were reviewed, - 77% appear to be private farm roads rather than

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

I've always mapped a track that's not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path. Ian Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100 From: "EON4wd" mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> > To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification

Hi Oisin, Thanks for your email. As per the listing as well as service and residential roads, I have altered the vast majority to highway=service, service=driveway, access=private. I have also altered another 200 or so roads that had other issues. I am now noticing the surface being removed off

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

As part of this discussion I would like to know how to handle illegal motor bike tracks through the bush. I have found that these can often be mapped as a track, as these can be seen clearly on a satellite photo. They are definitely on the ground and often used every weekend, although there

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

Thanks Dian Your tagging suggestion might work, I'll suggest it to Parks Vic, Lysterfield next week. Tony I think you've struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the path is merely missing, not

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

Oct 29, 2021, 12:42 by p...@wyatt-family.com: > In most cases you are allowed to legally travel ANYWHERE, including off > track, within a national park (with minimal exceptions), however we do not > mark on the map every possibility between all known destinations. That would > make the map

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

In such case it would be worth to report this as a clear bug. (have not verified that it actually happens) Oct 29, 2021, 13:23 by p...@wyatt-family.com: > I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no > > -Original Message- > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> >

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

I think you've struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed. It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path is stored. I can imagine a

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

Hi, On 29.10.21 12:33, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the > track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". > > Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it > happened here. Anyway its not

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no -Original Message- From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Some

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

On 29/10/21 9:42 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote: Hi Folks, In this case I would again defer to the locals who are working with the local land managers. Some of the tracks in question have been closed for years and its likely in the case of any search and rescue then the same people who removed the

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

OSM is the database. If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise. So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes of transport,

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

On 29/10/21 9:33 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here.

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

On 29/10/21 3:58 pm, Phil Wyatt wrote: Hi Folks, In this case the user name of NTCA is a bit of a hint. Took me a couple of minutes to find this group https://www.facebook.com/nerangtrailcare/ - Nerang Trail Care Alliance In this case I would

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

Hi Folks, In this case I would again defer to the locals who are working with the local land managers. Some of the tracks in question have been closed for years and its likely in the case of any search and rescue then the same people who removed the track would be called in to assist (at

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about,

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

29 Oct 2021, 09:08 by fors...@ozonline.com.au: > You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't > have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map > every informal trail. > Note that "do not map women's refuges" applies to ones which

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

I still fail to see how that's a valid argument for not mapping the geometry. We have lifecycle prefixes ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay ) and access tags ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno#Illegal_objects ) for this. And I would argue

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you > don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't > have to map every informal trail. This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

Hi all This also came up in 2015, https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2015-July/010619.html The consensus, which I was not happy with, was "if it exists then map it". I volunteer with a park Friends Group and see things more from a Parks Service perspective. There are usually