Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] >> > Totally unacceptable. OpenStreetMap maps what is observable on the ground > (generally). If they: > > 1) Don't want that trail to exist, they can restore that area to its > natural state, and *then*, delete the data from OSM. > 2) Don't want people to use those trails, they can place "no public access" > signs at the places where these "unofficial" trails join the "official" > trails, and then add the appropriate "access=* tags to OSM as others have > suggested. > 3) Simply do not want these to show up on their map, they can do some post > processing of the OSM data after export, but before rendering > > I often map unofficial trails based upon on the ground survey with GPS and > camera supplemented with Strava and BIng. It is great to have the data in > there for my personal use and that of others who like to hike the back > country, but I also want it to be there for search and rescue, wildland > fire fighters and other emergency personnel. In effect removing this data > by using a tagging scheme that no one but the editor in question > understands is a huge disservice. > Mike
Mike (and Frederik, and many others) is entirely correct here. The real problem is CaliParks breaking data for others, and another view is that they are not just tagging for the renderer, but tagging for their renderer only. It has had zero effect on OSM data, but my local Conservation Commission has the same policy: on Conservation land, there is a rule requiring people to stay on official trails. (I know this because I've read the rules and becuase I have talked to the Conservation Coordinator.) Their maps don't have the unofficial trails, but OSM has most of the more obviosly visible ones. I haven't gotten to it, but have more or less decided I'd put access=no on the unofficial trails. There are two things that could happen. One is access=no, we can both do that and allow it without per-trail signs. A published official map and rules suffices; the point is that an ordinary person can determine what is and is not allowed - it doesn't have to be obvious at any particular physical local. (My town tends to have a signboard at trailheads with a map and rules; this is really not hard to figure out.) Another is that there could be some sort of additional positive tag, like officially_maintained=yes, added to trails that a landowner declares to be usable. The real point is that these should be extra metadata, not changing the primary tag. Finally, I think the notion that omitting actual trails from maps does not serve the cause of safety. It makes it harder for map users to stay oriented, especially if they are using paper maps without GPS. Having trails marked as not allowed makes it easier to navigate. And ultimately, putting up no entry signs at unofficial trails is going to be more effective than trying to suppress map data.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
