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

Mon Oct 9 00:08:16 UTC 2023

In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.

Thanks

Graeme

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 09:47, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter <benjaminaritter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> I believe it's more nuanced than that.
>
> If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore
> it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like
> placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is
> regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay"
> lifecycle prefixes.
>
> If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
> where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
>
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill <ewen.hill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter <benjaminaritter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
>> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
>>
>
> Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
> we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
> asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
> Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.
>
>
>>
>> In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
>> the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
>>
>> Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
>> which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
>> likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.
>>
>
> Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
> buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
> providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
> I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths
> which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a
> conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM.
>
>
>>
>> With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure,
>> the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a
>> new one.
>>
>> Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
>> being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
>> solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
>> long term for the reasons above.
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231009/0076f3fd/attachment-0001.htm>