[talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together with a
hazard= tag?

Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to set-up
an OSM liasion contact.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley <mrpulley at iinet.net.au> wrote:

> I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only.
> The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any
> restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any
> restrictions.
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
> continue further and therefore access=no.
>
> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just
> means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes
> and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231218/a9d33c09/attachment.htm>