[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 13:48, Dian Ågesson <me at diacritic.xyz> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> When this issue was last raised on the mailing list, I suggested the
> following tagging schema.
>
>    - highway=rehabilitation
>    - access=no
>    - informal=yes
>    - rehabilitation:highway=path
>    - source:access=parks agency name
>
> As has already been raised, deleting these tracks will only result in them being remapped at a later date. It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path
> is stored. It's primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate use.
>
> By indicating that the land is not a highway, but land undergoing rehabilitation, the track would:
>
>
>    - not be displayed/rendered as a path (at least initially, until a new
>    rendering was introduced)
>    - prevent mappers from remapping an illegal, deleted path
>    - provide details about the source of illegality for later ground
>    truthing. (a check date tag could be added as well, if needed).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
I'm okay with "rehabilitation" as a lifecycle prefix to mean the track has
been closed to either rehabilitate naturally on it's own or with some
manual intervention. I think it's very similar to the disused prefix which
already exists, but no harm in being more explicit.

I'm more in favour of only using the lifecycle prefix
rehabilitation:highway=path and deprecating the older
highway=rehabilitation + rehabilitation=path style tagging (so no highway
tag at all in your example), but either works.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220125/897903f2/attachment.htm>