[talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes
andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 23 11:17:44 UTC 2020
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 19:21, <forster at ozonline.com.au> wrote:
> 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.
I can see the issue, but still hopefully access=no indicating legal access
should still be able to be used if it's clear enough that access is not
> "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.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:43, Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> wrote:
> An illegal track in a national park is likely to be one that is cut
> without the authority of the managing agency. It’s a fairly regular
> occurrence and often the start of increased impacts in ares that may be
> reserved for conservation rather than recreation.
Thanks for the explanation, I didn't think about unauthorised track
construction, I had assumed these tracks simply formed over time by
repeated use, which in itself wouldn't have been illegal unless the area
was closed. Even then a track that was illegally constructed, wouldn't be
illegal to use unless it was signposted as such.
It's just after hearing park authorities raise concerns about us showing
un-authorised tracks on OSM, my reaction is usually how are we or anyone
supposed to know which tracks are authorised and which aren't unless there
is signage to indicate that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au