[talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

[Greg Lauer]

Hi Frederick,

There is 'authoratative' data available for NPWS estate -
https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset?q=NPWS+track&organization=&tags=&dctype=&res_format=&license_id=&sort=score+desc%2C+metadata_modified+desc
and
we have a waiver -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue. The problem
is that the data is not up to date, and in may cases conflicts with the
'on-the-ground' conditions. For example a track marked as open in the
database has closed signs and vice versa, or a local Ranger may decide to
close the track. This is common problem with data made available from state
agencies as in many cases there is reluctance to make data public (or they
don't have the resources to manage it).

I think your solution is appropriate in the circumstances but will make the
following comments.

1. Although we can mark as private or similar it really is up to the
rendering engine of the application that the user is looking at to display
this attribution (closed etc.). A quick a review of some of the common
applications seems to indicate this is a problem.

2. Other 'authoritative' data (for example https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ and
the 1:25,000 topographic maps) all showing conflicting data around track
and very little information on access rights.

3. The area in question is managed by three entities - state government,
local government and private landholders and they all have conflicting
views on access to the area.

These issues around the mapping of tracks has been an ongoing issue for as
along as people have been creating maps! I am unsure how NWPS think that
can sue someone for creating a track on a digital database (but this is not
the first time they have threatened this). I believe there was an issue
with a commercial publisher a few years back regarding some tracks in
National Park that had been closed. That said, hopefully by engaging with
these agencies we can effect change.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and present an solution.

Greg


On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 6:23:34 AM AEST, Frederik Ramm <
frederik at remote.org> wrote:


Tony,

On 9/11/19 21:31, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote:
> The construction and use of unauthorized trails is illegal with large
> penalties (though I have never heard of a prosecution).

Are there sources that are not restricted by copyright that we could use
to determine which trails are authorized and which are not?

> The policy in OSM to map everything that exists ignores the fact that
> not all mapping is in the community interest. I would like to see a more
> nuanced policy.

There are indeed some nuances, for example there is general agreement in
the community not to map the nesting places of rare birds (lest eggs be
stolen), and a similar general agreement exists for things like women's
refuges. This is in addition to the respect for privacy that is shared
by most mappers - where the term "privacy" is generally interpreted
narrowly to mean "things about your life that you cannot see from the
aerial image".

Some people come to DWG claiming privacy because someone has traced
their driveway from aerial imagery; this is not usually a complaint we
entertain.

But the things I mentioned are not really codified anywhere, and there
are often corner cases that lead to lengthy debates. A remotely related
case for example was in Germany recently, where forest management and
tourism authorities had agreed to a careful scheme of "trekking" camp
sites in forests where camping would not normally be allowed. Their plan
was to keep the exact location of these places secret, and require prior
booking by users, who would only upon booking be told where exactly to
find the spot. This was part of the compromise they reached - the forest
authorities didn't want any people camping, the tourism people wanted to
offer something for nature lovers, so they agreed on this scheme which
at least promised that the places would not be overrun. You can imagine
how the story went on - things being kept secret piqued the interest of
mappers, and before too long all the places were mapped
(tourism=camp_site, camp_site=basic, backcountry=yes). The authorities
complained, but of course they have no legal recourse... still, this led
to some discussion in the German mapping community in how far official
wishes/demands for secrecy should be respected.

We certainly cannot respect *every* local government law or else we'd
likely have to purge our maps of all content in China, North Korea, and
some Arab countries, delete all military areas in many others...

It is an interesting topic for a general discusssion. Though in this
concrete case I wonder how to determine whether what looks like a
footpath in the Conservation Lands is legal to use or not... should
*all* the trails drawn in the area be marked access=no? Should we ask
the adminstration for a list?


Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190912/e692f53e/attachment-0001.html>