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

Sat Oct 24 23:59:11 UTC 2020

Hi Folks,

For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as point 4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….

4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing authority prior to adding such tracks.

Cheers - Phil

From: Little Maps <mapslittle at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, 23 October 2020 9:35 PM
To: OSM Aust Discussion List <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

Hi folks, thanks for a very interesting discussion. It was great to hear from people who don’t often pipe up on the forum. Whilst it started off informative and insightful, it didn’t take long to reach into rhetoric about Russia and guns/maps don’t kill people ... neither of which is particularly helpful.

The original issue is clearly very important, so can I ask a much more basic question.... what text should we add to the Australian Tagging Guidelines, which give no guidance on the matter? The proportion of mappers who read the guidelines may be small but must be much larger than those who read this listserve. If the outcome of this discussion isn’t consolidated I for one would see this a somewhat wasted opportunity.

Best wishes Ian

On 23 Oct 2020, at 9:12 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by forster at ozonline.com.au <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au> :

A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the Don'tRender tag

'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?

Technically it is possible but it would require license

change that would be problematic

both from legal viewpoint (making such rule effective

would be tricky at best)

and unlikely to be accepted by osm community.

It is not impossible as in "can be established

with math proof to be illogically and therefore impossible"

but impossible as in "I will stop conflict in

Middle East by posting on Twitter'.

'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not an acceptable edit'

I don't think anybody suggested it was.

This "solution" regularly appears in such

topics about illegal or unwanted paths.

'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped and rendered in OSM.'

Nobody said that Russia should should be able to

It was just proposed that owners or operator 

of an area would be able to suppress 

rendering of objects there.

Its a point for discussion. What do you think should happen?

Paths existing but illegal to use should

be marked and tagged with access tags.

Path destroyed should be deleted from OSM.

Paths but existing should not be mapped in OSM.

Why single out Russia?

AFAIK they have laws forbidding mapping

locations of military bases.

PS thanks Steve for your second email.

thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'

Tony

Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by forster at ozonline.com.au <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au> :

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.

Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not mapping private info.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.

Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM, only slightly more red.

This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)

You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and Strava.

Any decent router will not route over them.

Graeme

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

This is a bad idea.

A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the Don'tRender tag

That is fortunately impossible.

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

You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.

Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not an acceptable edit.

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

Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped and rendered in OSM.

I knowingly and deliberately violated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China

by mapping objects in China.

_____________________________________________________

This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line

see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20201025/8daf5fb0/attachment-0001.htm>