<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/02/2022 17:38, Phil Endecott via
Talk-GB wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1644601131618@dmwebmail.dmwebmail.chezphil.org">Andy
Townsend wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 08/02/2022 14:47, Phil Endecott via
Talk-GB wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Andy Townsend wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">* If you find maps and apps that
misrepresent the path, or show it to
<br>
a readership that probably shouldn't be encouraged to use
it, then
<br>
perhaps let OSM's Data Working Group know via email to
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:data@openstreetmap.org">data@openstreetmap.org</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As someone who is potentially "misrepresenting" this path,
<br>
what advice would the DWG offer me? </blockquote>
<br>
To be honest, Gruff who started this thread is better placed
than me to answer that.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Gruff, if you're still reading this, Andy has passed the buck back
to
<br>
you. What is your advice?
<br>
<br>
This is going round in circles...
<br>
<br>
Gruff: Hello, I'm relatively new to OSM, I believe this path
shouldn't
<br>
be shown, what to do?
<br>
<br>
Everyone: Assuming it's not totally invented, keep it but tag it
and
<br>
blame the data consumers / apps / etc. if they still display it.
<br>
<br>
Andy: If you find maps and apps that misrepresent the path ...
tell DWG.
<br>
<br>
Me: How exactly am I supposed to filter out this path without also
<br>
losing the important path from Scafell Pike to Mickledoor, and who
<br>
knows what other collateral damage?
<br>
<br>
Andy: "Gruff is better placed than me to answer that."
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>To recap, what Gruff actually said originally was:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">A quick check of our statistics show that
we've attended 13 incidents here over the last 4 years, but my
experience tells me that a great many more will have had
negative experiences along this track without having to involve
the rescue team.</blockquote>
and I said:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite"> If you find maps and apps that
misrepresent the path, or show it to
<br>
a readership that probably shouldn't be encouraged to use
it, then
<br>
perhaps let OSM's Data Working Group know via email to
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:data@openstreetmap.org">data@openstreetmap.org</a></blockquote>
You then said:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">As someone who is potentially
"misrepresenting" this path,
<br>
what advice would the DWG offer me? </blockquote>
and I replied:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">To be honest, Gruff who started this
thread is better placed than me to answer that. I'd suggest
that it's going to depend on who your maps are targetted at - if
it's the "determined mountain hiker", and people understand what
they might find, then it makes perfect sense to show it. If
it's the "person on Snowdon in flip=flops" mentioned in another
post, I wouldn't show it.
</blockquote>
<br>
</p>
<p>To recap, there are two issues here:</p>
<ol>
<li>Some data may be mistagged in OSM.</li>
<li>Some maps and apps may present data to a set of users for whom
it is not suitable, or exclude data when it should be presented
as it _is_ suitable.<br>
</li>
</ol>
<p>With regard to the first of these, someone who's familiar with
each area (in Gruff's case
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029</a> , in your example
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24564464">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24564464</a> ) is best placed to say
how something should best be tagged. Gruff updated the tags on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029</a> 6 days ago.</p>
With regard to your example, you said:
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">I've just done an overpass turbo query to
look for trail_visibility=horrible
<br>
and it includes the main path from the summit of Scafell Pike to
<br>
Mickledoor. It's not shown on your map. </blockquote>
and I said:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">Funny you mention that - I actually
queried the sac_scale there with the mapper who added that tag 3
years ago:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59901184">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59901184</a>
<br>
<br>
I haven't updated it myself because I haven't been there for
ages. If it's wrong, please change it! <br>
</blockquote>
Not having been there for a _very_ long time I don't want to
assume that my dim recollection is better that other people's
recent local knowledge.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>With regard to the second point, Gruff's also more likely than me
to know what maps were "getting users into trouble" near Snowdon.
I suggested that if a particular map or app doesn't warn about
potential difficulty and arguably should do so for its target
market, to let the DWG know as we might know a way to contact the
author.</p>
<p>As to whether your maps are targetted more at the "determined
mountain hiker" or the stereotypical "person on Snowdon in
flip=flops" you'll know better than me; I'm guessing (assuming
that <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ukmapapp.com/free_maps.html">https://ukmapapp.com/free_maps.html</a> is the right site) that
it'll more likely be the former than the latter. <br>
</p>
<p>One slight caveat with those though is over access - I'm sat just
north of <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ukmapapp.com/map_screenshots/maps_york.jpeg">https://ukmapapp.com/map_screenshots/maps_york.jpeg</a> right
now, and your screenshot shows far more public footpaths in that
area than there actually are - Have a look at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/Screen_2022021101_001.png">https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/Screen_2022021101_001.png</a> * ,
which shows far fewer than the "maps_york" screenshot. However,
that's an issue very much tangential to sac_scale and
trail_visibility.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p>* Created by superimposing <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://osm.cycle.travel/rights_of_way">https://osm.cycle.travel/rights_of_way</a>
(local authority public footpath data) over
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://b.os.openstreetmap.org/layer/gb_os_om_local_2020_04/">https://b.os.openstreetmap.org/layer/gb_os_om_local_2020_04/</a> (OS
OpenMap Local).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>