[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