Hi, While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous discussions that there is some consensus that paths that are really, really gone (there's a building on top; or there's a lot of fences or overgrowth; it doesn't re-appear from time to time) do not belong in OSM at all. Then again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of the database.
When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual highway type, then they should be stopped. Mathieu, You say "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." I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some other people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still change their mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes. Best, Joost Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <matth...@gaillet.be>: > Good point. > > A search led me to this discussion > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails > which > emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes. > > Matthieu G. (en mode mobile) > > > > Matthieu G. (en mode mobile) > > Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie <ebe...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Hello, > > In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist anymore. > I didn't want to delete his work complete and > deleted highway=path and replaced it by historic=path and left > name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map > but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map. > > Regards, > > Erik > > > Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe: > > 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 > listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- 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
