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 <osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au>
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
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
