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/
<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
<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
<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
<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
