[talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

forster at ozonline.com.au forster at ozonline.com.au
Fri Oct 23 08:18:28 UTC 2020

Thanks Steve, Andrew and Graeme for your replies.

Steve says "maps don't make people do foolish things, foolish people do"
Steve, I guess we are all here because we strongly believe in open  
data, I would very much prefer if we could map the world exactly as we  
find it.

Your argument is about who is at fault, I would argue it is less  
important to find who is morally culpable and more useful to take a  
purely utilitarian point of view: "given the nature of the world, what  
is the result of my action?"

I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a  
women's refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the  
process. And it doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at  
the door because I have mapped a refuge.

Thanks, I hadn't considered life cycle prefixes. There might be  
problems with disused or abandoned if those reopening the trails  
argued that they used the trail last week so it was neither disused  
nor abandoned.

"illegal tracks", the ones I am thinking of are illegal in both their  
construction and use, if I recollect correctly, the fine for  
construction is much much bigger than use. Sorry if the description  
has baggage or is misleading. Re access=no, if I recollect correctly  
they still display in OSM, only slightly more red. You probably  
wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and Strava.

Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and  
don't have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.

I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated  
for the benefit that results but here goes:

a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
ID editor would not honour the tag, we see the feature, its tags,  
discussion etc
A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy  
for the Don'tRender tag

I would hope that for cases like women's refuges they were never  
mapped in the first place

By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of  
addition and deletion and edit wars.

Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land owner  
or manager is credible, if two organisations have credible claim to  
that then Don'tRender=disputed

Like I say, maybe too complicated for the benefit.


More information about the Talk-au mailing list