[talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 147, Issue 8

Herbert.Remi Herbert.Remi at protonmail.com
Tue Sep 17 01:10:27 UTC 2019


You can do anything you want when it is not explicitly stated it is forbidden.

I am picking up on a number of threads in this conservation topic.

Mappers cannot know everything and cannot make decisions on land management issues particularly if the relevant authorities are yet to make the decision. This forum is not the right one to make a decision on land management issues. Maps follower the rules of the land like car drivers follow the rules of the road. If there is no rule against it, then the answer is we can do it. If we put nothing on a map then we dont have a map. Imprecision is built into maps, they are works in progress, evolving to represent the world, but just at a much less detail. OSM may not be perfect but it is very useful. :-)

Land management means zoning, regulations, protected areas, rules for land use, fire protection, and space for both conservation and land development programs. Particular in areas close to built-up areas and recreational areas there can be conflicts between recreational and conservation values. The interests are extremely varied and it is hard to get it right. The local council and state governments do a pretty good job but when there are no fence, gates or signs then we do what seems reasonable.

Those responsible for national parks and nature reserves generally do a pretty good job of providing information. The information is generally available on the website and the information is often available as maps and even data sets on open data portals. It seems the biggest problem is getting it into OSM without breaking things and the legal issues with copyright terms that may or may not comply with those of OSM.

The rules for bikes vary from state to state but generally, they can be used on roads like cars, and paths like pedestrians. What the track or path is made out of is not of importance. I have never understood the aversion bikes. The rules for horses are more restricted but most states have areas where they promote equestrian activities.

Particularly in the area of conservation, I think it would be better to contact the authorities to implement proper conservation measures. Often a fence and a sign around a sensitive area are all that is needed. Not much really.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 18:04 schrieb <talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org>:

> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1.  Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Frederik Ramm)
> 2.  Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Andrew Harvey)
> 3.  Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Frederik Ramm)
> 4.  Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Andrew Harvey)
> 5.  Re: Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands (Frederik Ramm)
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:46:45 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
> To: Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
> Message-ID: 30f92520-e79f-3f67-e791-31f91f2844d2 at remote.org
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12.09.19 06:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the
> > ground, and it appears in this case that the local mapper Zhent, has
> > been mapping based on local knowledge.
>
> I have a feeling that Zhent's "foot=yes" might not mean "there is a sign
> here allowing access" but more "I walked here and wasn't arrested" ;)
>
> Question is, can we assume that any path leading into Conservation Lands
> that does not have a sign forbidding something, allows it? Probably
> not - NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for
> new "things that look like paths". Mind you, some of the paths that were
> added here have "sac_scale" and "trail_visibility" tags that do not
> sound like these are obvious trails actually prepared by NPWS for walkers.
>
> This might also tie in with the concept of "default rules" - for
> example, if "everyone knows that horse riding is only permitted on
> explicitly signed trails" in Conservation Lands then do we apply a
> blanket horse=no to everything else, or not...
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:16:18 +1000
> From: Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
> To: Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
> Message-ID:
> CAD5VjssE=YMiwXw=xPRdwxjwZnKwsheTAmt+M53hSpgRXrsF6g at mail.gmail.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> First up, I appreciate your work mediating here Frederik, thank you.
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 15:46, Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org wrote:
>
> > On 12.09.19 06:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> >
> > > It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the
> > > ground, and it appears in this case that the local mapper Zhent, has
> > > been mapping based on local knowledge.
> >
> > I have a feeling that Zhent's "foot=yes" might not mean "there is a sign
> > here allowing access" but more "I walked here and wasn't arrested" ;)
>
> > Question is, can we assume that any path leading into Conservation Lands
> > that does not have a sign forbidding something, allows it? Probably
> > not - NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for
> > new "things that look like paths". Mind you, some of the paths that were
> > added here have "sac_scale" and "trail_visibility" tags that do not
> > sound like these are obvious trails actually prepared by NPWS for walkers.
>
> Within the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area, NPWS says the only
> two things prohibited are Pets and Smoking,
> https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/illawarra-escarpment-state-conservation-area/visitor-info#Prohibited
> .
>
> Normally for most National Parks and SCA's you're allowed to walk anywhere
> unless otherwise prohibited.
>
> > NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for
> > new "things that look like paths"
>
> On the flip side, how are we as mappers or the public meant to know that we
> can't use this path unless they put up signage?
>
> In my opinion paths signposted or otherwise for walking should be
> foot=designated to indicate there is signage saying this path is explicitly
> for walking. This provides a way to distinguish NPWS designated walking
> paths. Any path they want people not to use they'd need to put sinage and
> we'd tag as access=no, and any other path with no sigage would be somewhere
> in the grey area between access=no and access=designated (which I always
> saw access=yes as that middle ground tag).
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190912/559b72ab/attachment-0001.html
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:29:26 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
> To: Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
> Message-ID: 058d5134-5ee0-abdd-80d1-b45f2688831a at remote.org
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12.09.19 08:16, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > Within the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area, NPWS says the
> > only two things prohibited are Pets and
> > Smoking, https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/illawarra-escarpment-state-conservation-area/visitor-info#Prohibited.
> > Normally for most National Parks and SCA's you're allowed to walk
> > anywhere unless otherwise prohibited.
>
> The link you posted contains the following wording:
>
> "Come for a serious bushwalk or a casual jog, visit a lookout in the
> winter for whale watching off the coast, or break out the binoculars for
> birdwatching. There are cycling opportunities on fire trails and plenty
> of chances to cool off in summer by retreating to a rainforest track."
>
> Would "serious bushwalk" be a term that NPWS could be using for walking
> only along pre-established trails, or is this a clear invitation to walk
> wherever you want?
>
> > In my opinion paths signposted or otherwise for walking should be
> > foot=designated to indicate there is signage saying this path is
> > explicitly for walking.
>
> That makes sense.
>
> > Any path they want people not to use
> > they'd need to put sinage and we'd tag as access=no
>
> That too, though if they were to say "mountainbiking on designated paths
> only", we might consider tagging all non-designated paths with
> cycling=no - that's essentially the old question of whether defaults
> should be tagged.
>
> > and any other path
> > with no sigage would be somewhere in the grey area between access=no and
> > access=designated (which I always saw access=yes as that middle ground tag).
>
> In my opinion a foot=yes, while not necessarily indicating that there is
> a sign, is more than a grey-area assumption. It is an assurance given by
> the mapper to others that "it is ok and legal to walk here", based
> perhaps not on signage but on local rules and customs.
>
> I would not use foot=yes for "well there is a path here and I've walked
> along it but I'm not sure what would have happened had I met a ranger".
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:52:19 +1000
> From: Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
> To: Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
> Message-ID:
> CAD5VjstUsrGQSL5xr2fSCBu7OFcz9fkHJqRccLrLFdu9woKe2Q at mail.gmail.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 17:29, Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org wrote:
>
> > "Come for a serious bushwalk or a casual jog, visit a lookout in the
> > winter for whale watching off the coast, or break out the binoculars for
> > birdwatching. There are cycling opportunities on fire trails and plenty
> > of chances to cool off in summer by retreating to a rainforest track."
>
> The way I read that this is cycling is only permitted on fire trails
> (highway=track), not single path tracks (highway=footway/path). If that's
> the case I think it's fine to add bicycle=no to all paths, unless anyone
> with local knowledge knows better.
>
> Would "serious bushwalk" be a term that NPWS could be using for walking
>
> > only along pre-established trails, or is this a clear invitation to walk
> > wherever you want?
>
> They would only be promoting on track walking, but it's quite common for
> people to walk where there is no track which is fine. When there's a track
> they don't want people to use it's common for NPWS to put up signage saying
> the area is closed for remediation, etc. ie. access=no.
>
> > > In my opinion paths signposted or otherwise for walking should be
> > > foot=designated to indicate there is signage saying this path is
> > > explicitly for walking.
> >
> > That makes sense.
> >
> > > Any path they want people not to use
> > > they'd need to put sinage and we'd tag as access=no
> >
> > That too, though if they were to say "mountainbiking on designated paths
> > only", we might consider tagging all non-designated paths with
> > cycling=no - that's essentially the old question of whether defaults
> > should be tagged.
>
> Exactly, it does come down to tagging defaults or not. By default I'd
> assume any highway=path in a national park or SCA to be bicycle=no unless
> signposted as it being allowed and tagged as =yes or =designated, but so
> far I've only been tagging ones as =no when I encounter signage. I'm not
> too fussed, mapping a default bicycle=no seems sensible to me.
>
> Either way even if both foot=no and bicycle=no, the path can and should
> still be mapped in my opinion, if for nothing else but for aiding
> conservation efforts so we can keep track of unsanctioned tracks, closed
> tracks and their regeneration status. After all OSM is a database of
> geospatial data, the map on osm.org is for contributors to help map...
>
> > > and any other path
> > > with no sigage would be somewhere in the grey area between access=no and
> > > access=designated (which I always saw access=yes as that middle ground
> > > tag).
> >
> > In my opinion a foot=yes, while not necessarily indicating that there is
> > a sign, is more than a grey-area assumption. It is an assurance given by
> > the mapper to others that "it is ok and legal to walk here", based
> > perhaps not on signage but on local rules and customs.
>
> > I would not use foot=yes for "well there is a path here and I've walked
> > along it but I'm not sure what would have happened had I met a ranger".
>
> +1 Fair point.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190912/307cc98b/attachment-0001.html
>
> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:04:23 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands
> Message-ID: d78d99b7-5340-99b2-55fe-b554ded1efb6 at remote.org
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12.09.19 09:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> > "Come for a serious bushwalk or a casual jog, visit a lookout in the
> > winter for whale watching off the coast, or break out the binoculars for
> > birdwatching. There are cycling opportunities on fire trails and plenty
> > of chances to cool off in summer by retreating to a rainforest track."
>
> Specifically for the Lower Escarpment Trail, I found this co-authored by
> the NPWS office:
>
> http://www.visitwollongong.com.au/uploads/308/illawarra-escarpment-trails-pdf.pdf
>
> "Lower Escarpment trail ... This unsealed vehicle-width trail traverses
> the lush middle slopes between Tarrawanna (Hawthorn Street) and Bulli
> (Bulli Pass) ... Ideal for: fit walkers, joggers and cyclists."
>
> Which clearly seems to indicate that cycling is allowed - would that
> include mountain biking? Unsure, this mountain biker web site
>
> https://www.trailforks.com/route/lower-escarpment-trail/
>
> says:
>
> "Unlicensed motorbikes have resulted in a number of head on accidents
> with riders. ... This route is Unsanctioned, Ride at your own Risk!"
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 147, Issue 8





More information about the Talk-au mailing list