As part of this discussion I would like to know how to handle illegal motor bike tracks through the bush.
I have found that these can often be mapped as a track, as these can be seen clearly on a satellite photo. They are definitely on the ground and often used every weekend, although there are many signs saying it is illegal. Note that it is only illegal for motorised vehicles, walking or horses is OK. These ‘tracks’ are not wide enough for a 4wd although an enthusiastic armchair mapper has mapped them as such, and I have been often caught out. (I am very biased against armchair mapping for the bush. As an avid 4wd and bush lover, it is much better that the track is not marked than find a track that is marked but shouldn’t be. Fuel and time both need to be managed when you are a long way from a town.) I don’t like deleting these tracks but they are not ‘management’ , it is illegal to use them, and they are not wide enough for a standard car. Question – how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn’t seem appropriate. The rest of the discussion will hopefully answer how to map an illegal track. Thanks Ian From: Dian Ågesson <m...@diacritic.xyz> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 11:41 PM To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) I think you’ve struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed. It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn’t be used. I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It’s primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate use. something like: access=no informal=yes rehabilitation:highway=path source:access=parks agency name Dian On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote: OSM is the database. If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise. So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they don't. Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again, possibly with wrong tags once more. OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the information from the database. That includes Carto. I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't like how a particular data consumer uses it. If you are unhappy about how something is being presented: a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you want. This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data consumers use the data. -----Original Message----- From: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> <fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34 To: Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org <mailto:frede...@remote.org> > Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park) Hi Frederik, Thorsten 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights". Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails. 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516 later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong. I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications later. Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging, access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them. We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667 There are 3 trails, Way: 476219417 which is access=no Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path #951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the legal trails. Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting OSM's consensus policy. I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the consensus position. Tony Hi, On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> wrote: 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. This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts of park managers. Having said that, 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that situation, while the park manager might want the best for the environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed to do. 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful - might even save lives. 3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even save lives. 4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count. Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress that we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites and apps using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not including access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, and by clearly marking these restrictions on maps. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org <mailto:frede...@remote.org> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _____________________________________________________ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
