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

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Hi

I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified  
himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would  
share off list.

He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street Map.  
But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails that Mark  
is reverting.

He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on the  
ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or illegal.

I encouraged him to join the discussion here.

Tony

> I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.   
> (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible   
> trail deleted)
>
> The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
> highway=path
> foot=yes
> informal=yes
> trail_visibilty=intermediate
> surface=dirt
>
> With additional tags:
> hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
> access=discouraged
> note=access discouraged by NPWS
>
> with a link in the changeset notes to   
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F +   
> mention of this discussion.
>
> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>
> Mark P.
>
>> On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22?am, Graeme Fitzpatrick   
>> <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together   
>> with a hazard= tag?
>>
>> Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to   
>> set-up an OSM liasion contact.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley <mrpulley at iinet.net.au   
>> <mailto:mrpulley at iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>>> I?m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked   
>>> tracks only. The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn?t   
>>> mention any restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn?t   
>>> mention any restrictions.
>>>
>>> Mark P.
>>>
>>>> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32?pm, Andrew Harvey   
>>>> <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com <mailto:andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only"   
>>>> combined with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to  
>>>>  imply you can't continue further and therefore access=no.
>>>>
>>>> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me   
>>>> that just means it's the end of foot=designated, and further   
>>>> tracks would be foot=yes and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>