<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>I think you’ve struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the path is merely missing, not consciously removed.</p>
<p>It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn’t be used.</p>
<p>I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It’s primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate use.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>something like:</p>
<p>access=no</p>
<p>informal=yes</p>
<p>rehabilitation:highway=path</p>
<p>source:access=parks agency name</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Dian</p>
<div id="signature"> </div>
<p><br /></p>
<p id="reply-intro">On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk-au@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">OSM is the database. <br /><br />If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be<br />fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise.<br /><br />So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has specified<br />that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified modes<br />of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if they<br />don't.<br /><br />Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does not<br />do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them again,<br />possibly with wrong tags once more.<br /><br />OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the<br />information from the database. That includes Carto.<br /><br />I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you don't<br />like how a particular data consumer uses it.<br /><br />If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:<br /><br />a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality<br />b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless other<br />consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way you<br />want.<br /><br />This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how data<br />consumers use the data.<br /><br />-----Original Message-----<br />From: <a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au">forster@ozonline.com.au</a> <<a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au">forster@ozonline.com.au</a>> <br />Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34<br />To: Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a>><br />Cc: <a href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br />Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang<br />National Park)<br /><br />Hi Frederik, Thorsten<br /><br />1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track<br />in order to keep people from exercising their rights".<br /><br />Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it happened<br />here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal trails.<br /><br />2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be<br />helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could equally<br />argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my<br />mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516<br />later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are<br />rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow. <br />Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.<br /><br />I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the polygon<br />but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could ground<br />truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map women's<br />refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for justifications<br />later.<br /><br />Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle tagging,<br />access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.<br /><br />We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to<br /><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667</a><br />There are 3 trails,<br />Way: 476219417 which is access=no<br />Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are rendered<br />similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed<br /><br />We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path<br />#951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know that it<br />is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" there is<br />a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to "stay on<br />formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all the<br />legal trails.<br /><br />Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its never<br />going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours of<br />volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and get<br />deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service respecting<br />OSM's consensus policy.<br /><br />I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence support<br />the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of<br />problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the<br />consensus position.<br /><br />Tony<br /><br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">Hi,<br /><br />On 29.10.21 09:08, <a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au">forster@ozonline.com.au</a> wrote:
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but <br />you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We <br />don't have to map every informal trail.</blockquote>
<br />This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts <br />of park managers. Having said that,<br /><br />1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the <br />legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a <br />park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track <br />in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that <br />situation, while the park manager might want the best for the <br />environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal <br />situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are allowed</blockquote>
to do.
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><br />2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue <br />teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the <br />informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost, <br />knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful - <br />might even save lives.<br /><br />3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal <br />or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even <br />save lives.<br /><br />4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for <br />orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or <br />whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is <br />visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count.<br /><br />Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress <br />that we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites <br />and apps using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not <br />including access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions, <br />and by clearly marking these restrictions on maps.<br /><br />Bye<br />Frederik<br /><br />--<br />Frederik Ramm ## eMail <a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"<br /><br />_______________________________________________<br />Talk-au mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br /><br />_____________________________________________________<br />This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see <br /><a href="http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning</a><br /><br /></blockquote>
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />_______________________________________________<br />Talk-au mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br /><br /><br /><br />_______________________________________________<br />Talk-au mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a></div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>