<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I completely agree with regard to beach sections of LDPs, such as
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/400098#map=12/-35.0135/117.2243">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/400098#map=12/-35.0135/117.2243</a>
(in Western Australia) and
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3285170#map=14/51.5619/-4.1443&layers=H">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3285170#map=14/51.5619/-4.1443&layers=H</a>
(South Wales). The latter has got all the Wales Coast Path
signage in it that I could find in that area; I couldn't find any
on the beach itself. The former has occasional signage at best.</p>
<p>> The same happens in pasture where there is a right of way
and entry/exit stiles or kissing gates. The route taken by walkers
varies to avoid wet bits and to go around where livestock is
grazing at the time </p>
<p>If the exit from a field is obvious (e.g. gate visible at the far
side) I probably wouldn't mark it as a low trail_visibility, as
it's obvious where you need to go. It's not like
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/820162969">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/820162969</a> , where the sign that
you're aiming for is far enough not to be visible from the other
end.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
On 08/01/2023 12:35, Philip Barnes wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A8979860-4779-4E86-8DFC-E648E5BF7D56@trigpoint.me.uk">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
The same here, which thanks to carto rendering of beaches looks a
bit odd.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.9066/-4.1676"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.9066/-4.1676</a><br>
<br>
The same happens in pasture where there is a right of way and
entry/exit stiles or kissing gates. The route taken by walkers
varies to avoid wet bits and to go around where livestock is
grazing at the time <br>
<br>
Phil (trigpoint)<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 8 January 2023 09:45:47 GMT, Warin
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com"><61sundowner@gmail.com></a> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I have a few Australian 'path' sections that are on beaches
.. visibility is truly 0! Yes the surface of the path is
sand, as are the beaches concerned. The sections are
required to from a route relation that is contiguous. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/1/23 03:11, SK53 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAELijW8-xeVr2ZsrUZbKz1jteDVGZsZEuCSuFqs57YSztY082w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Dudley,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Unfortunately, this 'path' seems to be experiencing a
bit of an <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/160034461/history"
moz-do-not-send="true">edit war</a>. It's not the only
one, there was a recent similar issue on Causey Pike,
where the <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85797718/history"
moz-do-not-send="true">way</a> was recently removed
from OSM. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm currently pulling down open data of DEMs with a
view of identifying any other 'paths' in the Lake
District which might require review. <br>
</div>
<div>There's a strong case for using trail_visibility to
help identify such things, and on any path/footway with
any SAC scale from T3 (demanding_mountain_hiking) and
above.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jerry<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</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><br>
</div>
<div>The article doesn’t seem to be criticising the
app but more it’s use and the understanding of its
limitations. I assume this means there may be a
way across a screw slope but you should assume it
might just be scree. I.e. no visible path on the
ground. As such, I assume the app doesn’t render
trail visibility for example.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dudley</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>