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

[osm.talk-au]

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 you want to indicate that a path or track is physically not wide enough for 
larger vehicles, just tag width=* (to specify the width of the path on the 
ground) or maxwidth:physical=* (to specify the maximum physical width of a 
vehicle that fits through) on it (but not maxwidth=*, as that implies that 
there is a legally defined limit).

 

While not widely used, you might also use access tags with :physical suffix, 
e.g. motorcycle=no + motorcycle:physical=yes

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 12:17
To: EON4wd 
Cc: ianst...@iinet.net.au; OSM-Au 
Subject: 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 motor-bike, but not car is done via access=*, but 
don't suggest just how!

 

I'm guessing highway=path + motor_vehicle=no + motorcycle=yes?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 11:46, EON4wd mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> > wrote:

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 bike tracks would be difficult to use as a walking track and also for 
a bicycle.

If the tracks were reclassified as a path, it would at least show something 
that is on the ground plus also imply that it is not allowed for vehicles.

What if the motor bike track is legal, how would you then classify the track if 
it is not wide enough for any car?

Thanks Ian

 

From: ianst...@iinet.net.au   
mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > 
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 11:11 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  
Subject: 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

National Park)

Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au 
 >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

>>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. 
>>There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate. 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 motor-bike, but not car is done via access=*,
but don't suggest just how!

I'm guessing highway=path + motor_vehicle=no + motorcycle=yes?

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 11:46, EON4wd  wrote:

> 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 bike tracks would be difficult to use as a walking track and
> also for a bicycle.
>
> If the tracks were reclassified as a path, it would at least show
> something that is on the ground plus also imply that it is not allowed for
> vehicles.
>
> What if the motor bike track is legal, how would you then classify the
> track if it is not wide enough for any car?
>
> Thanks Ian
>
>
>
> *From:* ianst...@iinet.net.au 
> *Sent:* Saturday, 30 October 2021 11:11 AM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* 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" 
>
> To: 
>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in
> Nerang
>
> National Park)
>
> Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> >>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike.
> There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[EON4wd]

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 bike tracks would be difficult to use as a walking track and also
for a bicycle.

If the tracks were reclassified as a path, it would at least show something
that is on the ground plus also imply that it is not allowed for vehicles.

What if the motor bike track is legal, how would you then classify the track
if it is not wide enough for any car?

Thanks Ian

 

From: ianst...@iinet.net.au  
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2021 11:11 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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

National Park)

Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au
 >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

>>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike.
There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate. 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100
>
> From: "EON4wd" 
>
> To: 
>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in
> Nerang
>
> National Park)
>
> Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> >>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike.
> There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Ewen Hill]

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 residential or
   unclassified roads,
   - 6% appear to be alleys or lanes that should have their highway type
   reduced to avoid routing down the lane and
   - 2% had other issues.

A further 3% were difficult to determine but caused no real concern
including old road alignments that may have been reclaimed by the farmer. I
reviewed each highway in JOSM using Bing / Maxar to determine what I
thought each highway should be. My thoughts may not be the same as others
on some highways however I believe I have identified the majority correctly
without local knowledge.

 I have now altered the highways as indicated above and manually altered
the 2% with other issues. This may mean there are a few islands of
access=all, or where Right Of Way or livestock routes might have been set
to private however I hope this is an improvement overall.

Before embarking on a large number of additions, it might be worthwhile
flagging this here and running some small batches. I am now seeing lots of
changes in the Victorian high country by the same commercial team and
removing surface type. It's hard to keep track of a very fast paced team
making one or two edits in a changeset.

-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[iansteer]

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

National Park)

Message-ID: <01d7cd1b$70f144b0$52d3ce10$@eon4wd.com.au
 >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

>>Question ? how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike.
There is a track width tag but it doesn?t seem appropriate. 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Ewen Hill]

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 tracks in Victoria e.g. https://osmcha.org/changesets/65812923/

  What appears on the official government datasets may not be what is on
the ground so take your time and perhaps raise a comment or raise a
question in talk-au.

All the best

Ewen

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 21:53, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) <
v-oi...@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thank you to Ewen for taking the time to review these ways and providing
> us with the excel sheet with all the relevant information to return to our
> edits and update them, and to Graeme and Michael for the insights and
> suggestions! We'll take the opportunity to update the team on the local
> characteristics that require a closer attention to detail and submit these
> individually rather than as a bulk upload. We're always looking to improve
> the quality of edits and the time people have taken to share their local
> knowledge and experience here is much appreciated.
>
> Thanks again,
> Oisin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc)
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 8:31 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Cc: Ewen Hill 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
>
> Hi Ewen,
>
> Nemanja is out on holidays for a couple weeks, so I'll jump in here.
> Thanks for taking the time to go through all these issues. We are still
> very much ready to proceed with the communities' decision on updates to
> tagging accordingly. In that regard we're glad to take the list of changes
> you propose in the form of a spreadsheet, or if you choose to use
> mapnotes/fixme's we can process them quick enough to have them resolved
> quickly. Feel free to reach out to me directly and we can get the team to
> prioritize this work.
>
> In terms of how to improve the mapping, Graeme has summarized Michael's
> proposal below as follows - " if it's named on the Govt data, then
> highway=unclassified + access=public; if not named  highway=unclassified
> + access=private." Would this be the best approach going forward when SA
> has newly published Open datasets? Then local surveyors can adjust
> individual roads, as necessary.
>
> Thanks again,
> Oisin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org  >
> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 6:48 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 37
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-audata=04%7C01%7Cv-oiher%40microsoft.com%7C6aafb7e6bda04edb68eb08d991759bc3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637700756595701348%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=HCO%2FC9h7phH3473DnbMhrVptw1bZlKJQwPWn0mQ4QAI%3Dreserved=0
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
>   contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>   (Ewen Hill)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:46:17 +1100
> From: Ewen Hill 
> To: o...@97k.com
> Cc: "Nemanja Bracko (E-Search)" , Graeme
> Fitzpatrick ,  OpenStreetMap
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
> Message-ID:
>  so8-hf_vq2lb3nxnyu9dwkxpie08a684fr7copcuda5k...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Nemanja,
>Thank you for improving the mapping of Australian roads and tracks. I
> have reviewed 1649 unclassified roads that have been added in South
> Australia and I believe over 1500 are private driveways, farm access or
> roads that have been decommissioned. I have significant concern that an
> active army barracks has had access=all created for all internal roads and
> there is the possibility of routing through the barracks. Similar to some
> biohazard facilities which are used for testing on crops. How would you
> like the list to be provided to you and how can we have these fixed
> urgently and finally how do we improve the mapping?
>
> During the bushfire season, we do not want a family 

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

[EON4wd]

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 
are many signs saying it is illegal.

Note that it is only illegal for motorised vehicles, walking or horses is OK.

These ‘tracks’ are not wide enough for a 4wd although an enthusiastic armchair 
mapper has mapped them as such, and I have been often caught out.

(I am very biased against armchair mapping for the bush. As an avid 4wd and 
bush lover, it is much better that the track is not marked than find a track 
that is  marked but shouldn’t be. Fuel and time both need to be managed when 
you are a long way from a town.)

I don’t like deleting these tracks but they are not ‘management’ , it is 
illegal to use them, and they are not wide enough for a standard car.

Question – how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. There 
is a track width tag but it doesn’t seem appropriate. 

The rest of the discussion will hopefully answer how to map an illegal track.

Thanks 

Ian

 

From: Dian Ågesson  
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 11:41 PM
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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 use case where a hiker sees a path, checks the map and 
sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn’t be used.

I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the status of 
the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It’s primary use is land 
being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate use.

 

something like:

access=no

informal=yes

rehabilitation:highway=path

source:access=parks agency name

 

Dian

 

 

On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote:

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, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they
don't.

Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again,
possibly with wrong tags once more.

OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.

I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't
like how a particular data consumer uses it.

If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:

a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you
want.

This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data
consumers use the data.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au   
mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org> >
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  
Subject: 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, illegal trails.

2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally
argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.  
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.

I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon
but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground
truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's
refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications
later.

Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging,

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

[forster]

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 consciously removed.

It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path
is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks
the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn't be
used.

I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the
status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It's
primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate
use.

something like:

access=no

informal=yes

rehabilitation:highway=path

source:access=parks agency name

Dian

On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


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, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they
don't.

Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again,
possibly with wrong tags once more.

OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.

I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't
like how a particular data consumer uses it.

If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:

a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you
want.

This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data
consumers use the data.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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, illegal trails.

2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally
argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.

I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon
but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground
truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's
refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications
later.

Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging,
access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.

We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667
There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered
similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed

We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path
#951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it
is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is
a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on
formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the
legal trails.

Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never
going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of
volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get
deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting
OSM's consensus policy.

I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support
the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of
problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the
consensus position.

Tony

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 

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

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 look like a spiders web. This would also not help search and 
> rescue efforts.
>
using highway=path/footway for "walking here is legal, as you can legally 
travel 
anywhere" is also clearly invalid and noone is really proposing it

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

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> 
> 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 renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... 
> and it works.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Dian Ågesson]

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 use case where a hiker sees a path, checks 
the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn't be 
used.


I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the 
status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It's 
primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate 
use.


something like:

access=no

informal=yes

rehabilitation:highway=path

source:access=parks agency name

Dian

On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


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, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if 
they

don't.

Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does 
not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them 
again,

possibly with wrong tags once more.

OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.

I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you 
don't

like how a particular data consumer uses it.

If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:

a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless 
other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way 
you

want.

This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how 
data

consumers use the data.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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, illegal 
trails.


2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can 
be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could 
equally

argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.

I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the 
polygon
but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could 
ground
truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map 
women's
refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for 
justifications

later.

Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle 
tagging,

access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.

We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667
There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are 
rendered

similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed

We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path
#951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know 
that it
is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" 
there is
a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to 
"stay on
formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all 
the

legal trails.

Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its 
never
going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours 
of
volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and 
get
deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service 
respecting

OSM's consensus policy.

I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence 
support

the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of
problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the
consensus position.

Tony

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 

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

[Frederik Ramm]

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 what I thought we were talking about,
> illegal trails.

This has definitely happened in Germany though the legal situation is
not always crystal clear - in most cases, a park or forest manager would
have the legal right to close something if they can show that there's
imminent danger to plant or wildlife, and in practice many will be more
assertive about this than the law allows (a.k.a. "there's danger to
plant or wildlife because I say so"). So you'll have the local manager
claim that "this is an illegal trail" and the local hikers saying "but
the law says we can use the forest for recreation and your reasoning is
bogus".

This has led to situations where the local manager would not dare put up
signs that say "path closed" because they know it would be challenged,
but they subtly try to achieve the same by deleting the path from OSM.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Phil Wyatt]

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 renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... 
and it works.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Warin]

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 track would 
be called in to assist (at least in Australia). You also will not see them if 
doing a desktop edit from aerial imagery.

Having worked in this field in Australia for over 30 years most of your 
arguments do not hold any validity in a real world sense (in Australia), it may 
be different in other parts of the world.

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 
look like a spiders web. This would also not help search and rescue efforts.

Leave it to the locals to decide the best course of action



Yes and no.

The local land care group and managers may well be very good at what 
they do, but may not have the best mapping skills.


It should be a two way street, advice in both directions.

For instance a mapper who marks a trail in a National Park access=no as 
they are thinking of 4WDs .. not walkers nor management vehicles.




Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Frederik Ramm 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 7:46 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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 the efforts of park 
managers. Having said that,

1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the legal 
situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park manager would 
prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people 
from exercising their rights. In that situation, while the park manager might 
want the best for the environment, the park manager would have to work to 
change the legal situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they 
are allowed to do.

2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue teams 
say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the informal trails, 
and if you're searching for someone who got lost, knowing which informal trails 
they might have taken can be helpful - might even save lives.

3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or even 
prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save lives.

4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for orientation ("take 
the second left after entering the forest" or whatever). In these cases if there's a 
trail that exists and is visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count.

Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that we 
should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps using OSM 
data to properly process these access tags, by not including access-restricted 
trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly marking these 
restrictions on maps.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[osm.talk-au]

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, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they
don't.

Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again,
possibly with wrong tags once more.

OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.

I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't
like how a particular data consumer uses it.

If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:

a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you
want.

This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data
consumers use the data.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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, illegal trails.

2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally
argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.  
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.

I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon
but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground
truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's
refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications
later.

Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging,
access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.

We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667
There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered
similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed

We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path
#951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it
is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is
a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on
formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the
legal trails.

Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never
going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of
volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get
deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting
OSM's consensus policy.

I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support
the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of
problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the
consensus position.

Tony

> 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 the efforts 
> of park managers. Having said that,
>
> 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the 
> legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a 
> park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track 
> in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that 
> situation, while the park manager might want the best for the 
> environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal 
> situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed
to do.
>
> 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue 
> teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the 
> informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, 
> knowing 

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

[Warin]

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. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, 
illegal trails.


2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can 
be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could 
equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the 
"I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are 
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. 
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.


I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the 
polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I 
could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We 
do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We 
search for justifications later.


Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle 
tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with 
them.


We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667

There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal
These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice 
that one of them was closed



Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show 
access... and it works.




We are not doing a great job on tagging either
The third track Path #951362516
is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is 
illegal
they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a 
good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to 
"stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards 
showing all the legal trails.


Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its 
never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many 
hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to 
revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the 
Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy.



? I have a trail that is mapped in OSM but not on the official maps.. I 
strike very few people on it. It was mapped in OSM before I came along 
... rather hard to see the start point unless you know it is there. It 
is more visible that the adjacent officially mapped path and I believe 
more attractive, though a little more strenuous. I don't see a trail 
marked on a map as attracting lots of traffic. I don't see any 
'legality' attached to official maps that would keep me to only using 
those mapped tracks.  A simple sign that says 'closed' will keep me out, 
but I'd like to know why. All of the local signs that I have seen have 
some explanation as to 'why'.


Is 'off track' walking now banded too, simply because 'it is not on the 
official map'? A local fire trail has been 'closed' for track work. I 
have taken an off track route to bypass the track work and get onto a 
path. I see nothing wrong with doing that - little damage is done .. I 
even removed some weeds (not strictly legal, but no ranger is going to 
object)!





I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence 
support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others 
a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced 
within the consensus position.


Tony


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 the efforts
of park managers. Having said that,

1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the
legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park
manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in
order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation,
while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park
manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of
trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do.

2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue
teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the
informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost,
knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful -
might even save lives.

3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or
even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might 

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

[Warin]

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 agree with the deletions



A trail local to me was closed off .. but still evident 'on the ground'.

IIRC I market it disused:highway=* with access=no, I think that removed 
it from most maps. OSMand now displays it .. if you look for it, and 
that fairly well describes its appearance on the ground. I am tempted to 
go abandoned:highway=* now some years later if I have not already, it is 
now rather over grown at least at the access points. I'll put it into OHM.


Another path has a 'track closed' sign on it .. but only on one end. It 
is in frequent use by bicycle riders from the 'track closed' end (down 
hill). I have removed a section on the map near the sign, but it is 
there for any one to see on the ground. I might have a word to the 
rangers, when they come to do some work in my street next week, about 
it. I may know of at least one of the riders using the track... I 
believe the fine is over $3,000.



My opinion: I disagree with deletions until it is gone - when it cannot 
be seen. Tag it with what is in effect .. access=no (signs?), 
disused:highway=* is fading due to lack of use/ revegetation. Possibly 
add the tag description=illegal/*.



While NTCA may have 'good intentions' the map is about what is there not 
what might be wanted.



*From:*osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 


*Sent:* Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
*To:* 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
*Subject:* [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang 
National Park)


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497 



“Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places”

My opinion on the topic is:

If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal 
access, that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has 
been created by traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's 
informal=yes.


That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on 
the list here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012863.html 



I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in 
this one way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably 
physically exist on the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn’t be 
simply deleted. If access is legally prohibited in some way, then the 
tags should reflect that, not the way simply being deleted.


What’s the general opinion about this?

Cheers,

Thorsten


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Phil Wyatt]

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 least in Australia). You also will not see them if 
doing a desktop edit from aerial imagery.

Having worked in this field in Australia for over 30 years most of your 
arguments do not hold any validity in a real world sense (in Australia), it may 
be different in other parts of the world.

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 
look like a spiders web. This would also not help search and rescue efforts.

Leave it to the locals to decide the best course of action

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Frederik Ramm  
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 7:46 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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 the efforts of park 
managers. Having said that,

1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the legal 
situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park manager would 
prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people 
from exercising their rights. In that situation, while the park manager might 
want the best for the environment, the park manager would have to work to 
change the legal situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they 
are allowed to do.

2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue teams 
say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the informal trails, 
and if you're searching for someone who got lost, knowing which informal trails 
they might have taken can be helpful - might even save lives.

3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or even 
prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save lives.

4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for orientation 
("take the second left after entering the forest" or whatever). In these cases 
if there's a trail that exists and is visible but is not shown on the map, you 
will mis-count.

Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that we 
should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps using OSM 
data to properly process these access tags, by not including access-restricted 
trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly marking these 
restrictions on maps.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[forster]

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,  
illegal trails.


2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can  
be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could  
equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the  
"I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516  
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are  
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.  
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.


I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the  
polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I  
could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We  
do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We  
search for justifications later.


Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle  
tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with  
them.


We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667

There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal
These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice  
that one of them was closed


We are not doing a great job on tagging either
The third track Path #951362516
is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is illegal
they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a  
good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to  
"stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards  
showing all the legal trails.


Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its  
never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many  
hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to  
revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the  
Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy.


I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence  
support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others  
a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced  
within the consensus position.


Tony


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 the efforts
of park managers. Having said that,

1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the
legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park
manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in
order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation,
while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park
manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of
trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do.

2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue
teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the
informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost,
knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful -
might even save lives.

3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or
even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save
lives.

4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for
orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or
whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible
but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count.

Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that
we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps
using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including
access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly
marking these restrictions on maps.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

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 are kept secret,
what is already covered by verifiability requirements.

There are also ones advertising their locations which want to be known, so
people who would need to get there know about it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[osm.talk-au]

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 that in the majority of cases we probably would map the
physical buildings of women's refuges (or their absence from the map might
become a beacon), just not label it's purpose.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 17:08
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM Australian Talk List'

Subject: 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 good environmental reasons for
closing informal tracks. Unfortunately there is a loop, if it exists then
map it, if its mapped it gets used and becomes more distinct. It takes an
enormous amount of work by volunteers like me to close a track and keep it
closed till it can revegetate sufficiently to remove it from the map under
the "if it exists then map it" rule.

So I support what Phil Wyatt is saying. Act cautiously and responsibly. 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.

Tony

> HI Folks
>
>
>
> My opinion on the topic (as a past track/trail manager) is that if you 
> are not a local actively involved with the trail managers then you 
> need to be very careful. There can often be rehabilitation at the 
> start and end of closed/illegal tracks and no active rehabilitation on 
> other parts. Despite the fact that they 'appear on the ground' they 
> may be part of a larger plan for removal or rehabilitation.
>
>
>
> Best to contact the managers of the area and see what their 
> preferences are for illegal tracks. In general, areas actively used by 
> walkers and bikers will have some connection with the trail manager 
> and are likely working to some agreed plan. Its clear this area is an 
> active location for bikers so I would defer to them.
>
>
>
> Biking and walking groups often go to a lot of trouble to get the 
> managers on side and in agreement with development of trails.
>
>
>
> By 2 bobs worth
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
> 
> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> Subject: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang 
> National
> Park)
>
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497
>
>
>
> "Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"
>
>
>
> My opinion on the topic is:
>
>
>
> If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal 
> access, that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has 
> been created by traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's
informal=yes.
>
>
>
> That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on 
> the list here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/01286
> 3.html
>
>
>
> I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in 
> this one way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably 
> physically exist on the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be 
> simply deleted. If access is legally prohibited in some way, then the 
> tags should reflect that, not the way simply being deleted.
>
>
>
> What's the general opinion about this?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thorsten
>
>







___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Frederik Ramm]

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 the efforts
of park managers. Having said that,

1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the
legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park
manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in
order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation,
while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park
manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of
trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do.

2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue
teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the
informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost,
knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful -
might even save lives.

3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or
even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save
lives.

4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for
orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or
whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible
but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count.

Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that
we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps
using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including
access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly
marking these restrictions on maps.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[forster]

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 good environmental reasons for  
closing informal tracks. Unfortunately there is a loop, if it exists  
then map it, if its mapped it gets used and becomes more distinct. It  
takes an enormous amount of work by volunteers like me to close a  
track and keep it closed till it can revegetate sufficiently to remove  
it from the map under the "if it exists then map it" rule.


So I support what Phil Wyatt is saying. Act cautiously and  
responsibly. 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.


Tony


HI Folks



My opinion on the topic (as a past track/trail manager) is that if you are
not a local actively involved with the trail managers then you need to be
very careful. There can often be rehabilitation at the start and end of
closed/illegal tracks and no active rehabilitation on other parts. Despite
the fact that they 'appear on the ground' they may be part of a larger plan
for removal or rehabilitation.



Best to contact the managers of the area and see what their preferences are
for illegal tracks. In general, areas actively used by walkers and bikers
will have some connection with the trail manager and are likely working to
some agreed plan. Its clear this area is an active location for bikers so I
would defer to them.



Biking and walking groups often go to a lot of trouble to get the managers
on side and in agreement with development of trails.



By 2 bobs worth



Cheers - Phil







From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National
Park)



https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497



"Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"



My opinion on the topic is:



If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal access,
that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has been created by
traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's informal=yes.



That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on the
list here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012863.html



I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in this one
way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably physically exist on
the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be simply deleted. If access
is legally prohibited in some way, then the tags should reflect that, not
the way simply being deleted.



What's the general opinion about this?



Cheers,

Thorsten








___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au