[talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Joseph Guillaume]

Thanks for the discussion.
Just to add that it's convinced me to make the effort to (try to) always
specify access for tracks in Australia, even if it's just access=unknown.

Fixing incorrect access tags does sound more practical than making
assumptions either way, and this way data consumers are forced to interpret
access=unknown explicitly.
I don't use mapcomplete, but I do therefore support aiming for 100% access
coverage for tracks in Australia.

For the map roulette task, I'd suggest treating access as an import if the
track is deemed to exist.
I'm that context, it would make sense to emphasise to local mappers where
that data come from
E.g. source:motor_vehicle=vicmap permanently closed

Btw, I'm going to continue to assume service=driveway implies access=private
Hopefully that one is a safer assumption...

Cheers,

Joe

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 9:42 pm Andrew Harvey via Talk-au, <
talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, at 5:40 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
> I've tried to get StreetComplete to ask about access but it was rejected
> https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2930
>
> note that it was rejected because
> 1) access is at least sometimes unsigned and not clear - is it different
> in Australia?
> Is it possible to have a simple question where someone with zero
> experience
> would reliably answer?
>
>
> Physical access for vehicles is usually clear because either there will be
> a locked gate at the start of the track just off the road, or there will be
> no gate.
>
> If there is no physical barrier and no signage saying it's private, then I
> think it's fair to consider it open to the public. I'll try to post on the
> ticket my thoughts around question wording and possible answers.
>
> Are there also tracks open to public entry on foot/bicycle and not in
> other vehicle?
> It also would need to be handled - or request user to leave notes for
> tracks not fully
> open and not fully closed if that is rare
>
>
> Yes this is very common, at least in my experience either,
>
> 1. It's an agricultural track on private property (eg. a farm) and so
> access=private as no mode is allowed.
> 2. It's a fire trail or forestry track on public land. It's almost always
> accessible by foot, and usually accessible by bicycle, and could go either
> way for motor_vehicle.
>
> 2) Problem of spammy quest is real (in some areas many, many, many will be
> public)
> but there are some spammy quests already and given high usefulness it
> seems survivable
>
>
> Correct, but in other areas many will be private so I think it's
> worthwhile considering the whole OSM project.
>
> 3) no community was known to want explicit access tagging on all
> highway=track
> (from this discussion I see that it can change)
> In such case posting comment in that issue to outcome of discussion
> (probably
> documentation on OSM Wiki) that explicit access tagging is desired on every
> single highway=track in entire country would defuse that argument
>
>
> Sure.
>
> (Or maybe it could be asked on access=unknown tracks?)
>
>
> I would still opt for where no access tags are set because for me as a
> data consumer in Australia of tracks, I'll need to consider them unknown.
>
>
> No promises that it would be implemented but "Australian community clearly
> agrees that explicit access tagging on all tracks is desired" would defuse
> one of blockers.
>
>
> I'm happy to work on the implementation, but that's probably the easy
> part, hard part is working out a way to write the question and answers
> that's clear, and covers most cases accurately.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> 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/20210823/c04484ef/attachment.htm>