Thanks Phil, I appreciate your insights on this. On the side issue, yes I definitely agree "informal path" track-tracing can have an effect on human use in the local, often wilderness, environments where they are recorded. However I have a preference to better tag these tracks eg abandoned=path or trail_visibility=no etc. Deleting a way on OSM loses the context of why it should no longer be used - it's just gone. A good example of this is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635206779 - by having access=no, removed=yes etc and a clear note on why not to use the way is useful to mappers, and it doesn't display on the popular renderers. If the way was deleted, in the future there'd be nothing to stop a well-intentioned armchair mapper creating a new way based on what they see on aerial imagery, who doesn't know about the no entry signage surveyed on the ground.
My question was more about tagging a hiking *route*, not a *track*. I'd like to produce AAWT route data from OSM. In real life, the AAWT route passes through Dairymans Creek area and I'd like OSM to convey that as it does form part of the one long overall AAWT hiking route. Comparing what I surveyed on the ground (GPS trace, and noting NPWS signage at wilderness boundary) to the official map (not licenced for use - https://theaustralianalps.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/map-15.pdf) all sources do mark the Dairymans Creek segment as forming part of the overall AAWT *route*. Perhaps Way 813749214 could be widened to an area covering the width of the plain? I'm open to ideas. My preference is for "something" to go here so OSM matches the context of the one overall AAWT hiking route, rather than "nothing" and leave a gap in the AAWT relation. Cheers. On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 19:36, Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com> wrote: > Personally, as an ex Parks Track Management Officer, I have actively > removed unformed, off track tracks from OSM. There are frequently > management plans for such areas where active promotion of the “tracks” is > discouraged and book authors are also encouraged to not mark the track in > their guide books. > > It’s about ensuring that such off track opportunities are available in the > future and that there is no “invitation”, and to ensure levels of use that > prevent major impacts. > > > Cheers - Phil, > On the road with his iPad > > On 21 Oct 2020, at 7:07 pm, Brendan Barnes <brenbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Hoping for some advice please. There's a few sections of the Australian > Alps Walking Track official route that are specifically "off track", that > is, there is no formal hiking path and hikers are requested by the National > Parks signage at both ends of these wilderness sections to navigate from a > compass bearing or visible landmark, till the track resumes at the other > side. > > I haven't been able to find a standard for "hiking routes" on OSM or the > Aussie tagging guidelines <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813749214>. > > For one section I tagged Way 813749214 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813749214> as route=hiking and nothing > else so far, and made it part of the AAWT relation. > > Is there a better way to map "off track" hiking routes? Or are there other > examples of where this occurs? > > Thanks, > ..Brendan > _______________________________________________ > 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
