<div dir="auto"><div>I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In fact, I think it is <i>more helpful</i> to keep the highway features with the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure, the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway</a>, instead of a new one.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the long term for the reasons above.</div><div dir="auto"><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Cheers,<br>Ben</div><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 4:11 pm Ian Sergeant, <<a href="mailto:inas66%2Bosm@gmail.com">inas66+osm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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 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 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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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 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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer 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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer 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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<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>