[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Josh Marshall]

> On 25 Jan 2022, at 2:46 pm, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 00:11, Josh Marshall <josh.p.marshall at gmail.com <mailto:josh.p.marshall at gmail.com>> wrote:
> my searching led me to put these tags on a certain walking path: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403832368#map=16/-32.5573/152.2856 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403832368#map=16/-32.5573/152.2856> Please advise if I'm going about that the right way with the conditional:foot and :bicycles tag.
> 
> Looks good, I see someone added these foot:conditional examples now to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks> which is very helpful.

Yes, that was me, thought it better to just put them in there rather than just having a howto hidden in the email archive for the list, after it took me a little while to work it out.

I’m guessing you added this section Andrew, there’s a bit of ambiguity with the final row on the table of examples which says...

> Off-track when not part of an official walking route	Walking routes off-track without any signage or official route.	Should not be mapped in OSM at all, or if they are controversially edited consider not:highway=* with a note=* indicating why it should not be mapped.


Should this be limited to “within National Parks areas” or something to that effect? It contradicts the Informal Walking Track row higher up. I’m invested here… there are tons of trails in my area which I believe to be private land but have landowners that don’t mind the access, or may be crown land but public access, but either way have some well-maintained trails by volunteers. See the network of trails at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-32.98762/151.70793 for instance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220125/5ff34ecc/attachment.htm>