<div dir="ltr"><div>In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data & removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Thanks<div><br></div><div>Graeme</div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey <<a href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com">andrew.harvey4@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter <<a href="mailto:benjaminaritter@gmail.com" target="_blank">benjaminaritter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something should exist in OSM.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think it should be represented with:</div><div dir="auto"><ul><li>highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor</li><li>informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths</li><li>access=no because the relevant authority says so</li></ul></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I believe it's more nuanced than that.</div><div><br></div><div>If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay" lifecycle prefixes.</div><div><br></div><div>If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.</div><div> </div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley <<a href="mailto:mrpulley@iinet.net.au" target="_blank">mrpulley@iinet.net.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):<div><br></div><div>1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)</div><div>2. Partial revert, with a change in tags</div><div>3. Leave the deletion as it is.<div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">For this particular example, the results would be:</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">3. No reversion</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*.</div><div><br></div><div>If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill <<a href="mailto:ewen.hill@gmail.com" target="_blank">ewen.hill@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi all, <div> A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting the environment over ground truth mapping.<br><br> On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity. In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist protection.</div><div><br></div><div>I feel the lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter <<a href="mailto:benjaminaritter@gmail.com" target="_blank">benjaminaritter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure, we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava, I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><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" target="_blank">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></blockquote></div><br><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</blockquote></div>