Hi, Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims of the mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep vicinal ways open. I am also aware that certain ways are only accessible certain times of the year due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the year. In general I advocate leaving paths through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights of way. My reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind of path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put those in OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets that you linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to check only one example, this is a good one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389 There is no place in OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing the situation on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to follow that track. So I would say to revert changes like that. As for the arguments of the mapper: * Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner. Nobody will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way open because I just put it on a website where everybody can put things". * It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on a daily basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions in OSM makes it useless for them. They don't care where they should be able to pass in theory. They want to know where they can pass in reality. In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious advantage for his personal use and by doing that makes the data useless for all other users. For me it is clear that those ways should be removed. Regards, Wouter On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet <matth...@gaillet.be> wrote: > Hi, > > Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or "vicinal” ways. > By disappeared I mean they are physically absolutely not existent on the > ground. They were either plowed or constructions were built right on them. > > I believe it goes against the general rule that states that one might only > map what’s visible on the field. Additionally the mapping itself was poorly > done and the source mentioned was not relevant. > > Using the tag [ <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility> > trail]_visibility > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility>=no > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:trail_visibility%3Dno&action=edit&redlink=1> > is > not an option here since the user decided to map a unmaintained track road > (with width = 4m !) that doesn’t offer such option. > > He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths was a > way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a discussion about the > openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the general public. He > promised to delete the date once the case will be closed. > > Les sentiers et chemins que j'ai repris sur OSM sont légalement toujours > existants et personne n'est en droit d'empêcher quiconque de les utiliser, > de les réhabiliter ou de les débroussailler... c'est une façon de mettre la > pression sur le riverain... dès que des alternatives auront été créées et > un bon accord conclu, j'effacerai les données au profit des alternatives > qui auront été proposées. > > > The changesets : > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927383 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566 > > > What do you think ? I believe that’s not a good way of doing things (I > don’t believe in maptivism in this situation) but can’t really find a clear > position of the community about this particular case. > > I don’t want to start a fight with that user because he’s really doing a > great job at preserving the right of use of those heritage vicinal ways by > confronting the Communes against those unfair owners. I would like to show > him some string arguments to explain him why his initiative is not good for > the community (If that’s the case). > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > Matthieu Gaillet > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > -- "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei." - Thor Heyerdahl
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
