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

Sun Oct 8 02:49:27 UTC 2023

Hi all,
  A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting
the environment over ground truth mapping.

 On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for an
outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
protection.

I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.

Ewen

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley <mrpulley at iinet.net.au> wrote:

> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>
> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>
> For this particular example, the results would be:
> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> 3. No reversion
>
> So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
> wasn’t sure about the third!)
>
> Here’s my proposal:
> Partial revert of ways
> Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
> survey in early 2022)
> Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
> Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of access=no
> (as NWPS don’t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
> describe the reason for the access tag
> (Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
> appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don’t have a new survey of this
> area. The NPWS ranger doesn’t appear to want this showing on the map, but
> hasn’t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
> officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
> have previously been marked access=no e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
> Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
> Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
> mailing list discussion).
>
> It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn’t planning to go back to
> this location any time soon to do one.
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter <benjaminaritter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (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
>
>> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20231008/d25fe650/attachment.htm>