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

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Yes Ewen, I agree

The OSM mission statement is at  
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement

I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t be evil"*
Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"

Tony Forster


* Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing” in 2015  
and finally dropped it in 2018  
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393



> 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
>