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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Made this, slightly tongue in cheek, comment t'other week.

Turns out that they possibly do!

Just clearing a Note & noticed that the traces of these paths,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=3942697#map=18/-32.95437/151.74519
which are tagged as disused, don't appear in Strava!
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.18/151.74460/-32.95468/hot/run

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20231022/574847b8/attachment.htm>