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

[Sebastian S.]

I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers or gov wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I understand why not having them in a map is in their interests.


On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <mrpulley at iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
>> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
>> Park).
>>
>> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
>> reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
>> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
>> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)
>>
>> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as
>> informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case
>> access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a
>> policy to the wiki for similar situations?
>>
>
>We have
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths>
>
>Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
>with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.
>
>Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) - These
>should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for users
>looking for closed paths.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20230922/3cec4504/attachment.htm>