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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Nicely put, Phil! :-)

Agree with everything you say.

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:43, Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers
> also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area
> is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.
>
>
>
> Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many
> years and there will likely be remains of the
> closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on some
> imagery, for an extended period of time.
>
>
>
> I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the
> desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see
> those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to
> previous levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going
> there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being
> undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=*type* along
> with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the
> ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left to very
> slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow
> and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full
> rehabilitation to take place.
>
>
>
> So my view is…
>
>
>
>    - If you *cant* see the track on the imagery – delete it.
>    - If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to
>    discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the managers to
>    actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you are concerned on
>    the tagging then its also likely that the area is a favourite place for
>    you. Work with the managers!
>    - Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged
>    tracks do not appear on public maps
>
>
>
> Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)
>
>
>
> Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife
> for many years so I am slightly biased.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sebastian S. <mapping at consebt.de>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
> *To:* talk-au at openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>;
> Mark Pulley <mrpulley at iinet.net.au>
> *Cc:* OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230922/ec2062e6/attachment.htm>