A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.
For this particular example, the results would be:
1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
3. No reversion
So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
wasn?t sure about the third!)
Here?s my proposal:
Partial revert of ways
Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
survey in early 2022)
Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of access=no
(as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
describe the reason for the access tag
(Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, but
hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
have previously been marked access=no e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
mailing list discussion).
It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to
this location any time soon to do one.
Mark P.
On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter <benjaminarit...@gmail.com> wrote:
(I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
agree with Tom's take and have commented below:
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, <webs...@ozultimate.com> wrote:
Tricky one.
I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
map which might encourage it.
But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
real tracks in the first place.
As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the
ground.
Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.
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 track to a surveyor
- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
- access=no because the relevant authority says so
It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any
signage at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly
maintained or vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not
practical use. I would encourage the managers to ensure signage is
maintained, because many people won't be using OSM as their source of truth!
I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification
for the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it
can be referenced as a source.
If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access
restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the access
tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for many
sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc.
Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* tag
that use of the track is discouraged/banned for rehabilitation.
Justification for reinstating the OSM features could also be documented in
the notes=* tag to minimise the risk of this discussion coming up again.
Cheers,
Ben
_______________________________________________
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
