[talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

[Warin]

Agree with most things you said Stev...

But for the copyright map thing. 'We' should not be using copyright maps 
for anything in OSM. I do use copyright maps .. usually for planning 
trips ... along with OSM or course. Once the trip is completed I use my 
trip generated knowledge to add/improve to OSM.

This complies with the 'on the ground' guide. And that guide should 
override other things.

Before reverting tonyf1's edit he should be contacted through OSM, this 
can avoid edit wars, clarify why things are done and lead to better 
understanding of what to do.

On 9/08/2015 9:41 PM, stev391 at email.com wrote:
> Tony,
> Thanks for firstly raising your proposed edit prior to making the 
> change (and also welcome to the OpenStreetMap community).  I had not 
> been to that track in about 6 months, so needed to revisit to see what 
> was on the ground before presenting my argument.  Please do not take 
> this as an attack on yourself and I hope that you continue to 
> contribute to the map.
> I agree with Bryce, it is definitely not bicycle=no as there is 
> nothing in the real world to indicate that this not allowed to be 
> accessed. See:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
> Which  states when using 'bicylce=no': "Where bicycles are not 
> permitted, ensure this is indicated "
> As you can see in the below referenced photos, there is no indication 
> that this is not permitted.
> The track is quite well defined and well used, here is some photos of 
> the track:
> http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/yu6LbmrK8FbjT1lPJzJlHw/photo
> (you might need to scroll out using the scroll wheel if the photo 
> looks too zoomed in)
> In that sequence of photos you can see the fire access track which is 
> very undefined (just low cut grass, with occassional wheel ruts) and a 
> very clear mtb track.
> To counter the arguments that it needs to be signed, there is no sign 
> at this intersection of the fire trails, does this mean it is not 
> defined and is not allowed to be accessed?
> http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/isYcxInLeTHkLFxNArzwkw/photo
> This track appears to be quite popular according to the Strava segments:
> https://www.strava.com/segments/5483327  (Southbound)
> https://www.strava.com/segments/5483306 (Northbound)
> This also shows that the track has existed in the real world for at 
> least 2 years, being used as a bicycle track.
> I also refer you to this OSM wiki page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map
> Which clearly states "When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground 
> rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there."
> (Similar wording appears here: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes)
> I propose that user tonyf1's edit should be reverted as:
> 1) The track is there and more well defined than other features in the 
> area.
> 2) OSM is a map of what is in the world, not what copyrighted maps 
> have stated.
> 3) This is a commonly used mountain bike track, with a recognised name.
> 4) bicycle=no requires this to be indicated in the real world.
> Happy to hear counter positions, based on OSM principles, not what 
> someone (park ranger) said to limit their legal liability.
> Stephen.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20150810/b085eb28/attachment.html>