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

[Tom Brennan]

Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration 
resource between mappers and land managers

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

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

On 25/09/2023 10:20 am, Tom Brennan wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au