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

[Ben Ritter]

(I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I agree
with Tom's take and have commented below:

On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan, <website at ozultimate.com> wrote:

> Tricky one.
>
> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a
> map which might encourage it.
>
> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about
> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
> real tracks in the first place.
>
> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.
>
> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on
> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it
> shouldn't appear on downstream maps.
>

I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
should exist in OSM.

This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
it should be represented with:

   - highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
   - informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
   - access=no because the relevant authority says so

It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any signage
at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly maintained or
vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not practical use. I would
encourage the managers to ensure signage is maintained, because many people
won't be using OSM as their source of truth!

I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification for
the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it can
be referenced as a source.

If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access
restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the access
tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for many
sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc.

Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* tag
that use of the track is discouraged/banned for rehabilitation.
Justification for reinstating the OSM features could also be documented in
the notes=* tag to minimise the risk of this discussion coming up again.

Cheers,
Ben

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20231002/98046b99/attachment.htm>