[talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Oct 30 07:51:55 UTC 2021
On 30/10/21 10:19 am, EON4wd wrote:
>
> As part of this discussion I would like to know how to handle illegal
> motor bike tracks through the bush.
>
> I have found that these can often be mapped as a track, as these can
> be seen clearly on a satellite photo.
>
> They are definitely on the ground and often used every weekend,
> although there are many signs saying it is illegal.
>
> Note that it is only illegal for motorised vehicles, walking or horses
> is OK.
>
> These ‘tracks’ are not wide enough for a 4wd although an enthusiastic
> armchair mapper has mapped them as such, and I have been often caught out.
>
> (I am very biased against armchair mapping for the bush. As an avid
> 4wd and bush lover, it is much better that the track is not marked
> than find a track that is marked but shouldn’t be. Fuel and time both
> need to be managed when you are a long way from a town.)
>
> I don’t like deleting these tracks but they are not ‘management’ , it
> is illegal to use them, and they are not wide enough for a standard car.
>
> Question – how to map a track that is only wide enough for a motor
> bike. There is a track width tag but it doesn’t seem appropriate.
>
highway=path .. is a 'track' but not wide enough for a car/4WD. That is
what I'd use.
Add access as appropriate.
> The rest of the discussion will hopefully answer how to map an illegal
> track.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
While 'on the ground' mapping is preferable there is a lot of Australia
and not than many mappers .. so needs must.
> *From:*Dian Ågesson <me at diacritic.xyz>
> *Sent:* Friday, 29 October 2021 11:41 PM
> *To:* osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au
> *Cc:* talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in
> Nerang National Park)
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au>
> <forster at ozonline.com.au <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au>>
> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
> To: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org <mailto:frederik at remote.org>>
> Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:frederik at remote.org> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see
> http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
> <http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> <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/20211030/4aa57fb8/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list