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

[Warin]

While 'removing it now' might seam like a good idea.. some map renders 
do not up date for 1 year.

So some will still show what you are attempting to remove. And then if a 
solution is found those removals will simply have to be reverted where 
possible.

Rather than removal how about retagging them with some thing that 
retains the past history .. was:highway=path for instance. I note the 
railway people are most resistant to the removal of railways that no 
longer exist ...

On 8/10/23 18:29, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au