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

[Ian Sergeant]

I understand what you would like the mission statement to be.

But right now, it's clear that we value ground truth.

If our mission is to change that should be a wider discussion.

I still don't see where the authority comes from to delete or revert a
genuine ground feature that someone has mapped in good faith.

We have tags to handle this scenario.

Ian


On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 6:34 PM <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20231008/2e5e7b58/attachment-0001.htm>