<html><head></head><body>In my area there are walks which are:<br><br>1. In a published local guide<br>2. Practically invisible on the ground, except for bits of red tape hanging from tree branches every 50-100 metres!<br>3. Definitely unofficial<br><br>I've traced them from my personal GPX recordings, and named them according to the name in the guide (with permission from the author of the guide).<br><br>Is this good practice? Or bad practice?<br><br>Regards,<br>David Wales<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 January 2022 7:53:18 pm AEDT, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:22, Little Maps <<a href="mailto:mapslittle@gmail.com">mapslittle@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Andrew, thanks for compiling the walking tracks page, it’s a great resource. It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages for walking tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep coming up on the forum.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Good idea, and eventually these pages could be linked to from <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian%20Tagging%20Guidelines">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian%20Tagging%20Guidelines</a>. Vehicle tracks should be less controversial and easier. MTB paths is a can of worms, I feel the global tagging practises aren't quite there yet, but happy to help out with a page. </div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></body></html>