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

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Hi Graeme
I have not seen anything indicating Strava removes ways from heat  
maps. Way 1033069444 was removed by lifecycle prefix on 1 September.  
Its heat trace is still there. I expect it to fade as it is used less  
and finally disappear.
Tony

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1033069444/history

https://www.strava.com/heatmap#16.18/145.31833/-37.93630/hot/run



Quoting Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>>
>>
>