<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <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>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""></pre>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>