[talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

forster at ozonline.com.au forster at ozonline.com.au
Fri Oct 29 07:08:10 UTC 2021


Hi all

This also came up in 2015,  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2015-July/010619.html
The consensus, which I was not happy with, was "if it exists then map it".

I volunteer with a park Friends Group and see things more from a Parks  
Service perspective. There are usually good environmental reasons for  
closing informal tracks. Unfortunately there is a loop, if it exists  
then map it, if its mapped it gets used and becomes more distinct. It  
takes an enormous amount of work by volunteers like me to close a  
track and keep it closed till it can revegetate sufficiently to remove  
it from the map under the "if it exists then map it" rule.

So I support what Phil Wyatt is saying. Act cautiously and  
responsibly. You could map a track under the "if it exists then map  
it" rule but you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they  
exist. We don't have to map every informal trail.

Tony

> HI Folks
>
>
>
> My opinion on the topic (as a past track/trail manager) is that if you are
> not a local actively involved with the trail managers then you need to be
> very careful. There can often be rehabilitation at the start and end of
> closed/illegal tracks and no active rehabilitation on other parts. Despite
> the fact that they 'appear on the ground' they may be part of a larger plan
> for removal or rehabilitation.
>
>
>
> Best to contact the managers of the area and see what their preferences are
> for illegal tracks. In general, areas actively used by walkers and bikers
> will have some connection with the trail manager and are likely working to
> some agreed plan. Its clear this area is an active location for bikers so I
> would defer to them.
>
>
>
> Biking and walking groups often go to a lot of trouble to get the managers
> on side and in agreement with development of trails.
>
>
>
> By 2 bobs worth
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au>
> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 2:05 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National
> Park)
>
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112722497
>
>
>
> "Removing closed or illegal trails. Tidy up of Fire Roads and places"
>
>
>
> My opinion on the topic is:
>
>
>
> If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal access,
> that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has been created by
> traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's informal=yes.
>
>
>
> That seems to be in line with the previously established consensus on the
> list here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-September/012863.html
>
>
>
> I have no local knowledge of the area and am not really invested in this one
> way or another, but I feel that paths that verifiably physically exist on
> the ground (which I assume these are) shouldn't be simply deleted. If access
> is legally prohibited in some way, then the tags should reflect that, not
> the way simply being deleted.
>
>
>
> What's the general opinion about this?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thorsten
>
>







More information about the Talk-au mailing list