[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #689 26/09/2023-02/10/2023

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 689, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of things happening in the openstreetmap world: https://www.weeklyosm.eu/archives/16760 Enjoy! Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in

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

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer wrote: > > It's not even controversial that NSW NPWS would remove informal trails > from OSM. Heck, I would. I'd also get smart, and start to ask OSM to revoke > accounts of repeat trail remappers. > Not disagreeing with you, Adam, but if the track has

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

On 09/10/2023 00:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: & for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after I sent my own saying more or less the same thing? I cocked it up anyway - sending it from a phone as html only, so I suspect many people (including the list archive) won't see

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

I agree that environmental preservation doesn't generally need to be in conflict with ground truth. If an area of a park - or tracks - is closed by land managers, tracks in that area should be tagged accordingly. By simply deleting tracks from OSM, mappers are more likely to add the tracks

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

In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data & removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no. Thanks Graeme On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter wrote: > >> I agree with all of this.

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

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 11:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data & > removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no. > And they or anyone else can't do that if we just delete the way completely as some are

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

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter wrote: > I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something > should exist in OSM. > > This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think > it should be represented with: > >- highway=* because it is clearly a

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

& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after I sent my own saying more or less the same thing? Thanks Graeme On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 23:12, Adam Steer wrote: > >> >> It's not even controversial that NSW

[Talk-tr] weeklyOSM #689 26/09/2023-02/10/2023

OSM ile ilgili haberlerin derlendiği ve OpenStreetMap dünyasındaki pek çok gelişmelerin paylaşıldığı haftalık bülten, 689. bölümüyle çevrimiçi ve Türkçe olarak erişilebilir durumda: https://www.weeklyosm.eu/tr/archives/16760/ İyi okumalar! weeklyOSM'e sizin de ekleme yapabileceğinizi

[OSM-talk-fr] hebdoOSM Nº 689 26/09/2023-02/10/2023

Bonjour, Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 689 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître *en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur : https://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/16760/ Bonne lecture ! Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note hebdomadaire sans être

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

I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other. In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix. Many OSM users are

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

Hi all What is the OSM community issue with the concept of 'do not map this it will cause harm'? OSMF and the OSM community cannot stop downstream users from using data however they like. It's open data, people may not even be aware that they need to apply specific tagging for visibility or not.

[talk-ph] weeklyOSM #689 26/09/2023-02/10/2023

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 689, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of things happening in the openstreetmap world: https://www.weeklyosm.eu/archives/16760 Enjoy! Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in

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

> The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and leave them removedI'm not actually convinced that is true.If something is visible from

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

Yes Ewen, I agree The OSM mission statement is at https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be evil"* Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere" Tony Forster * Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do

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

While 'removing it now' might seam like a good idea.. some map renders do not up date for 1 year. So some will still show what you are attempting to remove. And then if a solution is found those removals will simply have to be reverted where possible. Rather than removal how about retagging

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

I understand what you would like the mission statement to be. But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth. If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion. I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a genuine ground feature that someone has