<div dir="auto"><div>I understand what you would like the mission statement to be. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We have tags to handle this scenario.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ian</div><div dir="auto"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM <<a href="mailto:forster@ozonline.com.au">forster@ozonline.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Yes Ewen, I agree<br>
<br>
The OSM mission statement is at <br>
<a href="https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement</a><br>
<br>
I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be evil"*<br>
Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"<br>
<br>
Tony Forster<br>
<br>
<br>
* Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing†in 2015 <br>
and finally dropped it in 2018 <br>
<a href="https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Hi all,<br>
> A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting<br>
> the environment over ground truth mapping.<br>
><br>
> On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an<br>
> outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the<br>
> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter<br>
> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In<br>
> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the<br>
> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.<br>
> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist<br>
> protection.<br>
><br>
> I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it<br>
> might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect<br>
> fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.<br>
><br>
> Ewen<br>
><br>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley <<a href="mailto:mrpulley@iinet.net.au" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mrpulley@iinet.net.au</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this<br>
>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):<br>
>><br>
>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)<br>
>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags<br>
>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.<br>
>><br>
>> For this particular example, the results would be:<br>
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags<br>
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or<br>
>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*<br>
>> 3. No reversion<br>
>><br>
>> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I<br>
>> wasn?t sure about the third!)<br>
>><br>
>> Here?s my proposal:<br>
>> Partial revert of ways<br>
>> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my<br>
>> survey in early 2022)<br>
>> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted<br>
>> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of access=no<br>
>> (as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to<br>
>> describe the reason for the access tag<br>
>> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it<br>
>> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this<br>
>> area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the map, but<br>
>> hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it<br>
>> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations<br>
>> have previously been marked access=no e.g.<br>
>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/</a> )<br>
>> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways<br>
>> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the<br>
>> mailing list discussion).<br>
>><br>
>> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go back to<br>
>> this location any time soon to do one.<br>
>><br>
>> Mark P.<br>
>><br>
>> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter <<a href="mailto:benjaminaritter@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">benjaminaritter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I<br>
>> agree with Tom's take and have commented below:<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, <<a href="mailto:website@ozultimate.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">website@ozultimate.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Tricky one.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they<br>
>>> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a<br>
>>> map which might encourage it.<br>
>>><br>
>>> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about<br>
>>> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never<br>
>>> real tracks in the first place.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be<br>
>>> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the<br>
>>> ground.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on<br>
>>> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it<br>
>>> shouldn't appear on downstream maps.<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something<br>
>> should exist in OSM.<br>
>><br>
>> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think<br>
>> it should be represented with:<br>
>><br>
>> - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor<br>
>> - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths<br>
>> - access=no because the relevant authority says so<br>
>><br>
>> It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any<br>
>> signage at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly<br>
>> maintained or vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not<br>
>> practical use. I would encourage the managers to ensure signage is<br>
>> maintained, because many people won't be using OSM as their source of truth!<br>
>><br>
>> I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification<br>
>> for the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it<br>
>> can be referenced as a source.<br>
>><br>
>> If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access<br>
>> restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the access<br>
>> tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for many<br>
>> sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc.<br>
>><br>
>> Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* tag<br>
>> that use of the track is discouraged/banned for rehabilitation.<br>
>> Justification for reinstating the OSM features could also be documented in<br>
>> the notes=* tag to minimise the risk of this discussion coming up again.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> Ben<br>
>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Talk-au mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Talk-au mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Warm Regards<br>
><br>
> Ewen Hill<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>