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

[osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au]

I still fail to see how that's a valid argument for not mapping the
geometry.

We have lifecycle prefixes (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay ) and
access tags (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno#Illegal_objects ) for
this.

And I would argue that in the majority of cases we probably would map the
physical buildings of women's refuges (or their absence from the map might
become a beacon), just not label it's purpose.

-----Original Message-----
From: forster at ozonline.com.au <forster at ozonline.com.au> 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 17:08
To: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com>
Cc: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM Australian Talk List'
<talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)

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/01286
> 3.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
>
>