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

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Hi Mark

I would not offer Parks the option of a life cycle prefix until Parks  
recognizes that this comes with an obligation to maintain the ex-path  
in a disused, deconstructed or demolished state. I don't think that  
Parks has to be perfect in this, the the path might be illegally  
reopened from time to time  but the life cycle prefix should be  
representative of the path's average state.

Tony

> I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix   
> (mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the   
> recommendation seems to be to keep the tags as they are now   
> (access=discouraged, informal=yes).
>
> Mark P.
>
>> On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29?pm, Tom Brennan <website at ozultimate.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>