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

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Thanks Dian

Your tagging suggestion might work, I'll suggest it to Parks Vic,  
Lysterfield next week.

Tony

> 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