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

[Tom Brennan]

Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they 
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a 
map which might encourage it.

But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about 
it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never 
real tracks in the first place.

As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be 
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.

Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on 
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it 
shouldn't appear on downstream maps.

Reading through the comments on the changesets, on the NPWS side, it 
seems like the local ranger(s) contact the Maps and Data team, who then 
go and delete the tracks. So the people who are making the decisions on 
the ground (the rangers) are not the same ones implementing the changes 
in OSM. This makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation because 
you're not talking to the actual decision-maker.

cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 22/09/2023 4:37 pm, Phil Wyatt 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 <mailto:andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> > wrote:
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley <mrpulley at iinet.net.au <mailto: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