As you say, they are trying to discourage walkers but nothing to indicate it is not permitted to enter.
Path should be in OSM Ian > Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:52:06 +1100 > From: Mark Pulley <mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > To: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS > > On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track. > > The asphalt path ends at a lookout > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826 > > The ?controversial? path is still present south of here - I followed it some of > the way (about 350m), but didn?t follow it all the way to the end. > > There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows the > sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!) > https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6 > > On the left side of the sign, there?s a warning icon (exclamation mark), then > ?No safety rail?, another warning icon (man falling off edge of crumbling cliff), > then ?Unstable edges? > > On the right side of the sign is the text ?End of track, no safety rail beyond this > point? > > The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it?s not > technically a ?do not enter? sign. > > Does that help with what to do with this particular example? > > Mark P. > > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley <mrpul...@iinet.net.au > <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote: > >> 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 > > > > I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle prefix > on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*. > > > > If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should capture the > closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason > for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or > something like, access:reason=rehabilitation. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk- > au/attachments/20231214/f7dcd5fa/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 198, Issue 6 > *************************************** _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
