Hi, The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted some bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now. The user also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly. If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user block. A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be that we might be forced to just revert all their work.
Best, Joost Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck < wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>: > 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 > -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
