> The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map purity.
Adam, with respect, I cannot agree with this evaluation of this discussion. We have spent real time discussing how to represent the NPWS values in an ongoing way within OSM. We then resolved a solution for incorporating this kind of unsound edit: Verify that the tracks still physically exist, restore and tag with `access=no` and `informal=yes`. Our solution involves extra work to accommodate the atypical workflow of NPWS deleting paths as a means of communicating their updated access rights. And I think it is fair to say that we--as a community--are happy to do this because of the values communicated here. For me, and I suspect for the other OSMers here, the value is not "some abstract academic notion", it is my practical experience of using OSM data. When I see a bush track with dilapidated signage, or car tracks that might be someone's driveway, I pull out OSMAnd to see if I can learn about it. If the track is absent that means "not mapped yet" and if it has pink dots on it, it's private or forbidden. > What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service edits", then respect that ... This approach that you propose is not one of communicating towards a shared understanding, it is for one party to obey the decree of the other. "stop reverting parks service edits" is a solution concocted without consideration of the nuances of OSM that have been raised here, which was a good start to this discussion, but is not a conclusion that is sensitive to the OSM values raised here. As you have reiterated it, let me reiterate that it is not even possible for us to sustainable enact such a solution that is counter to the standard operation of OSM: the handful of mappers who have stuck through this conversation will know what we decide, but the other ~100 active australian mappers <https://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries&country=Australia&date=23-1-2024> on any given day will continue to apply the standard practice, causing the problem to pop up again and again. Anyway, on to the constructive part of the discussion: --- *Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in collecting any and all examples. This will help to make the real-world damage that "may occur" less abstract and more concrete, but more importantly, I am interested in following up with every such publication to get them to stop. To your question Adam, those that are publishing incorrect (by long-standing consensus) interpretations of the database are the ones responsible for any damage being caused. Regards, Ben On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 12:57, Tom Brennan <webs...@ozultimate.com> wrote: > I can agree with the last sentence, but not much else. > > I think most of the people in this thread genuinely want to work with > the various parks services to get OSM solutions that work for both parks > and the OSM community. > > We don't currently have any good communication channels. > > If we can get the right lines of communication - which is difficult when > you have OSM and NPWS being both distributed and bureaucratic in their > own ways - I'm confident that we will be able to get outcomes that > everyone is happy with. > > Tom > ---- > Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning > Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com > > On 29/02/2024 10:42 pm, Adam Steer wrote: > > Thanks Tony. > > > > The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It > is > > unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map > > purity. > > > > The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable > for > > anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come to OSM and > justify > > themselves" is pretty weird and backwards. > > > > What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help > > you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service edits", then > > respect that ... > > > > A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made > respectfully > > and responsibly. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
