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

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 23 11:08:05 UTC 2020


On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 21:51, <forster at ozonline.com.au> wrote:

> Hi Andrew
>
> I am intrigued by your suggestion of lifecycle.
>
> For a mountain bike trail thats just had its berms and jumps dug out
> and scattered and lots and lots of branches dragged across it and a
> sign put up at the head about the construction and use of illegal trails
>
> Is there a suitable lifecycle tag? Its barely disused or abandoned.
> Untrafficable? Destroyed? Deconstructed? Demolished?
>

Yeah so in this case per the descriptions at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix I'd say it should be
one of the "actively removed" tags, could either be
demolished:highway=path, removed:highway=path or razed:highway=path.


> And a week later the sign has been destroyed, branches dragged away
> where you can't go round and berms and jumps reinstated enough to make
> them trafficable? Remove the lifecycle tag?
>

If a vandal spray painted their name on a street sign, we shouldn't rename
it in OSM (unless it really has become commonly known as that by the
community). I'd be happy to still leave it as actively removed for some
time, but if it goes on for an extended period that the track is rebuilt
and still no new signage goes up at some point I don't think we can still
call it "actively removed".

Independently of the lifecycle prefix, if there are park wide rules which
would forbid bicycles we can and still should map as either bicycle=no or
access=no. Ideally there would be signage either at the start of the track
or somewhere else around the park boundary to indicate this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20201023/3cdcf14a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list