<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/01/2023 16:03, Edward Catmur via
Talk-GB wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJnLdObPj0HzgNjYPzRsZ6ShMcWLoU5X7+7uYCiBgpBdpp_EZQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 at 15:49,
Dudley Ibbett <<a href="mailto:dudleyibbett@hotmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">dudleyibbett@hotmail.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">
Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just seen this article in today’s Guardian: <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/hiking-app-alltrails-changes-route-rescue-three-walkers-lake-district"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/hiking-app-alltrails-changes-route-rescue-three-walkers-lake-district</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I’m not sure if this is relevant to the data in OSM
but it does seem to look like a footway/path on the main
map if I have correctly located it. According to the
article, the Mountain rescue team describe it as “no
path” so it would seem reasonable to ensure the tagging
is correct. Perhaps someone who has walked this route
can review the tagging.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It looks like there's an ongoing edit war over <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1127488902"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1127488902</a>
and adjacent ways. They're tagged
sac_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking in the most tricky parts;
what more can we do? </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem here is that some app developers are including
everything that OSM has as a "path" and adding it to general
purpose maps without any clue as to their difficulty. There was a
recent forum discussion which included:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/feature-proposal-voting-highway-scramble/5228">https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/feature-proposal-voting-highway-scramble/5228</a></p>
<p>and<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-highway-scramble/2496">https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-highway-scramble/2496</a></p>
<p>about the use of the tag value "highway=scramble" in place of
"highway=path" in cases such as this, as ways with (in OSM terms)
"sac_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking" aren't in any sense a "path".</p>
<p>There was some pushback in those discussions that "surely app
developers can just just look at the sac_sale tag" before deciding
to include a difficult-to-access way. Unfortunately, some of them
have not shown themselves capable of doing that, hence the
suggestion to use a different tag that forces them to think before
doing so.</p>
<p>If <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1127488902/history">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1127488902/history</a> really
exists in some sense (and I'm certainly not going to argue with
Wainwright) then it should be in OSM, but it shouldn't be
suggested to people as "a walk in the park" without some clue as
to what they're letting themselves in for. One option is
something like this:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#20/54.62859/-3.21546/H">https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#20/54.62859/-3.21546/H</a></p>
<p>there, the problematic section isn't shown until people
explicitly turn on a layer showing paths that are difficult / of
very limited visibility:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#20/54.62859/-3.21546/H/N">https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#20/54.62859/-3.21546/H/N</a></p>
<p>See</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/400548">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/400548</a></p>
<p>for more on this. Note that that also refers to <br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project#Suggested_Tagging">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project#Suggested_Tagging</a></p>
<p>which is interesting for a couple of reasons. One is that it's
an attempt by part of the OSM community (in the US) to get app
providers to "show trails properly" and not lead people astray,
which would have avoided this problem here. The language on that
page is US-centric, but if as I suspect some app developers such
as at AllTrails may never have been closer to the Lake District
than reading Beatrix Potter, it's probably speaking their
language. <br>
</p>
<p>Hopefully the US Trails Access Project can work with developers
including at AllTrails to get them to start using the richer
information that OSM can provide them with. There are a couple of
caveats with that though - Jerry mentioned a similar recent issue
near Causey Pike - see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2023/01/05/lakeland-rescuers-urge-caution-when-using-mapping-apps-after-callouts-to-walkers#">https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2023/01/05/lakeland-rescuers-urge-caution-when-using-mapping-apps-after-callouts-to-walkers#</a>
(that also mentions the Barf issue). That was mapped as
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85797718/history">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85797718/history</a> and has been
deleted but in OSM never had a trail_visibility tag. If there
isn't really anything there (just a way of getting from A to B)
then it probably shouldn't be in OSM, but anything that is in OSM
that isn't very visible really should have a trail_visibility tag
on it. App developers can't be expected to not show a path based
on trail_visibility grounds if that tag is not in OSM.</p>
<p>Another "interesting" thing is (quoting from the Grough article)
- that they claim there is an issue with the "perils of relying on
digital mapping software". I'd actually be extremely careful when
relying on commonly-used NON-digital options in some areas. For
example, if you compare OSM data at</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#15/54.3577/-1.1581/H">https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#15/54.3577/-1.1581/H</a><br>
</p>
<p>with OS Explorer mapping at</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=0bd8c7ba-cf68-424a-a5db-9545f5493774&cp=54.355109~-1.153462&lvl=15&style=s&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027">https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=0bd8c7ba-cf68-424a-a5db-9545f5493774&cp=54.355109~-1.153462&lvl=15&style=s&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027</a></p>
<p>you'll notice quite a few "public rights of way" missing from OSM
for the reason that there is no evidence of them existing on the
ground!<br>
</p>
<p>The OS shows non-PRoW tracks and some non-PRoW paths, but on
Explorer / Landranger it doesn't tend to show dotted path lines
underneath PRoWs so it's difficult to tell what sort of thing they
think should exist there.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>