<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>As part of this discussion I would like to know how to handle illegal motor bike tracks through the bush.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I have found that these can often be mapped as a track, as these can be seen clearly on a satellite photo.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>They are definitely on the ground and often used every weekend, although there are many signs saying it is illegal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Note that it is only illegal for motorised vehicles, walking or horses is OK.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>These ‘tracks’ are not wide enough for a 4wd although an enthusiastic armchair mapper has mapped them as such, and I have been often caught out.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>(I am very biased against armchair mapping for the bush. As an avid 4wd and bush lover, it is much better that the track is not marked than find a track that is marked but shouldn’t be. Fuel and time both need to be managed when you are a long way from a town.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I don’t like deleting these tracks but they are not ‘management’ , it is illegal to use them, and they are not wide enough for a standard car.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Question – how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn’t seem appropriate. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The rest of the discussion will hopefully answer how to map an illegal track.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Ian<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> Dian Ågesson <me@diacritic.xyz> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 29 October 2021 11:41 PM<br><b>To:</b> osm.talk-au@thorsten.engler.id.au<br><b>Cc:</b> talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>something like:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>access=no<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>informal=yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>rehabilitation:highway=path<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>source:access=parks agency name<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Dian<o:p></o:p></span></p><div id=signature><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p id=reply-intro><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>On 2021-10-29 22:11, <a href="mailto:osm.talk-au@thorsten.engler.id.au">osm.talk-au@thorsten.engler.id.au</a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>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">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><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Hi,<br><br>On 29.10.21 09:08, <a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au">forster@ozonline.com.au</a> wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><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<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>to do. <o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 5.0pt;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><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">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">http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><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">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">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div></body></html>