Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Kevin Kenny writes: > This isn't a matter of "get off my lawn." It's a matter of "there's no > promise that there's a path there at all." I think you're making a separate argument, that when there's some maybe-path that's indistinct, and not clearly followable, then

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On 26/03/2016 15:26, Kevin Kenny wrote: In these areas, a trail is a fairly tenuous thing. The marking may be just a splash of paint or an axe cut on a tree, and even that may be limited to once every few hundred metres. "A splash of paint every few hundred metres? You were lucky"*

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Alan McConchie writes: > Thanks everyone for your strong but sincere criticism so far. In the > thread here on talk-us, I explained _what_ we were trying to do, but I > didn't explain very much about our rationale: _why_ we think this is > an important idea. The wiki

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On 2016.03.26. 01:10, Alan McConchie wrote: ... Thanks everyone for your strong but sincere criticism so far. In the thread here on talk-us, I explained _what_ we were trying to do, but I didn't explain very much about our rationale: _why_ we think this is an important idea. The wiki proposal

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of > social path. Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and > register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than > to

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Hi Greg and others, Following the official procedure for proposing a new tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process ) I created that wiki page a few days ago, and now I've sent an email to the tagging list, to officially

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Hi, On 03/25/2016 11:36 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of > social path. Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and > register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than > to this tag :-) I wouldn't

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Is it just me, or does social_path sound like the way to a "social disease"? -jack On March 25, 2016 6:36:56 PM EDT, Greg Troxel wrote: > >There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" >of >social path. Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of social path. Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than to this tag :-) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Social_path

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Mike Thompson writes: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > >> They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] >> > Totally unacceptable. OpenStreetMap maps what is observable on the ground > (generally). If

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On 3/24/2016 5:50 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need to be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's give them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the problem has been highlighted to them pretty

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Thanks for reaching out Alan. I hope that we - and in particular I - haven't been too harsh in this discussion. On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Alan McConchie wrote: > In fact the big picture is the opposite: rather than ignore OSM, we want > to expose OSM to a

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > > > My view on the way forward in this particular situation. > Agree with your general approach > > * Decide on reasonable tagging. Agree that some use of "access" seems most > appropriate (maybe access=social?) > In

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

I've reached out directly and began conversations with Dan after reading this article. Good to hear from Alan too. My view on the way forward in this particular situation. * Decide on reasonable tagging. Agree that some use of "access" seems most appropriate (maybe access=social?)* Get Caliparks

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 13:59 -0700, Alan McConchie wrote: > It's true that the first comments on our changesets came 5 months ago, > but in our defense, we haven't been tagging any additional social_path > features since that time. We had always intended to seek input from > the community to make

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of > the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. It would be far better to create an additional tag rather than

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. access=no is also a decent suggestion (and would not require discussion with the community beforehand), but there is likely a quantitative

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] > > Totally unacceptable. OpenStreetMap maps what is observable on the ground (generally). If they: 1) Don't want that trail to exist, they can

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote: > Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most > important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks > and Stamen with the community. Is there a similar process for > institutional

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks and Stamen with the community.  Is there a similar process for institutional (business, government, non-profit) editing of data as there is for imports?  There

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On 24/03/2016 12:50, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] Thank you for the link. This is what I feared. highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that essentially deletes

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On 2016.03.24. 14:50, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] Thank you for the link. This is what I feared. highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that essentially

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Hi, On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] Thank you for the link. This is what I feared. highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that essentially deletes the data for all other consumers. There

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] regards m [1] https://hi.stamen.com/patrolling-trails-in-openstreetmap-a1c4762efb70#.2qq0g0v79 On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >I find this article a bit worrying: > >

[Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Hi, I find this article a bit worrying: http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/03/caliparks-app-safer-hiking-trails-california/475047/ It is about an app that displays tracks in California public parks based on OSM. When officials were unhappy about unoffical paths being displayed, "Park