Seems my opinion is different from the other Marc. AFAIK, the OSM consensus is to map what is on the ground, in this case only the by-pass. You could keep the "official" path, with some tag disused:highway or so, but IMHO, that is just clutter that makes it harder for others to edit. When your local council does not bother to re-instantiate the official path, it will soon loose that status, not?
As far as the removal of the "official" path is concerned, it probably depends on what "official" means. If it is e.g. in the Atlas der Buurtwegen and was not officially removed by the council, you should contact your council and describe the problem. I did that once and the day after, the track was open to the public again. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:59 PM Francois Gerin <francois.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Here is a probably subjective issue, that has certainly already been > discussed, but I cant' find a search engine for the mailing archives. > > Problem: > It's very frequent, in Belgium and certainly in many places, that a > private or farmer steals a footway because he dislikes people pass there > or just to extend his field for free. > The **official** path is then often no more visible and, sometime, there > may have an **unofficial** by-pass in the area. > The official trace MUST be kept because, well... it is official. :-) > And also because the by-pass MAY disappear at any time. > > Envisioned solutions: > 1. Keep official path only. =bad because it does not reflect the > reality (which may stand for many years!) > 2. Delete the official one, draw the by-pass. =rejected, because the > official must be kept, or we may loose both > 3. Keep both, but flag the hidden one with trail_visibility tag. =best > option found up to now, which seems accepted widely+officially > > Questions: > A. Is there any OSM consensus for a solution, at the global/worldwide > community level? > B. If not, is there any Belgian community consensus? > C. If not, is there any widely accepted option? > D. If not, is there any better solution than option 3? > > (Side issue: the current rendering on OSM does not express that this > path is poorly visible. But at least the flag is there for other > rendering tools/layouts.) > > Two examples I had to do: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700172645 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629096505 > > Thank you in advance for any pointer/doc/wiki/consensus! :-) > > Regards, > François > (aka fgerin on OSM) > (aka fge1 on balnam) > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
