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

[Dian Ågesson]

I think you've struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it 
will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the 
path is merely missing, not consciously removed.

It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path 
is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks 
the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn't be 
used.

I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the 
status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It's 
primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate 
use.

something like:

access=no

informal=yes

rehabilitation:highway=path

source:access=parks agency name

Dian

On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:

> OSM is the database.
> 
> If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be
> fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise.
> 
> So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has 
> specified
> that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified 
> modes
> of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if 
> they
> don't.
> 
> Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does 
> not
> do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them 
> again,
> possibly with wrong tags once more.
> 
> OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
> information from the database. That includes Carto.
> 
> I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you 
> don't
> like how a particular data consumer uses it.
> 
> If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:
> 
> a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
> b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless 
> other
> consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way 
> you
> want.
> 
> This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how 
> data
> consumers use the data.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: forster at ozonline.com.au <forster at ozonline.com.au>
> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
> To: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
> National Park)
> 
> Hi Frederik, Thorsten
> 
> 1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the 
> track
> in order to keep people from exercising their rights".
> 
> Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it 
> happened
> here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal 
> trails.
> 
> 2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can 
> be
> helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could 
> equally
> argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my
> mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
> later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
> rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.
> Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.
> 
> I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the 
> polygon
> but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could 
> ground
> truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map 
> women's
> refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for 
> justifications
> later.
> 
> Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle 
> tagging,
> access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.
> 
> We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667
> There are 3 trails,
> Way: 476219417 which is access=no
> Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are 
> rendered
> similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed
> 
> We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path
> #951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know 
> that it
> is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" 
> there is
> a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to 
> "stay on
> formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all 
> the
> legal trails.
> 
> Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its 
> never
> going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours 
> of
> volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and 
> get
> deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service 
> respecting
> OSM's consensus policy.
> 
> I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence 
> support
> the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of
> problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the
> consensus position.
> 
> Tony
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 29.10.21 09:08, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote: 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.
> This is true, and we shouldn't go out of our way to thwart the efforts
> of park managers. Having said that,
> 
> 1. Sometimes the matter can be a civil rights issue - depending on the
> legal situation, people might have the *right* to use a path but a
> park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the track
> in order to keep people from exercising their rights. In that
> situation, while the park manager might want the best for the
> environment, the park manager would have to work to change the legal
> situation instead of trying to mislead people about what they are 
> allowed
  to do.

> 2. In similar discussions we had people working with search and rescue
> teams say that they prefer to use OSM maps because those show the
> informal trails, and if you're searching for someone who got lost,
> knowing which informal trails they might have taken can be helpful -
> might even save lives.
> 
> 3. If you have an emergency out in the wild, knowledge about informal
> or even prohibited/closed tracks can be helpful and again, might even
> save lives.
> 
> 4. If you are navigating without a GPS, you might use trails for
> orientation ("take the second left after entering the forest" or
> whatever). In these cases if there's a trail that exists and is
> visible but is not shown on the map, you will mis-count.
> 
> Therefore I would like to agree with Paul and Thorsten, and stress
> that we should (a) map access tags properly, and (b) lobby web sites
> and apps using OSM data to properly process these access tags, by not
> including access-restricted trails in routing or route suggestions,
> and by clearly marking these restrictions on maps.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" 
> E008°23'33"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
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/20211029/8d0ab90c/attachment.htm>