[OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths
EeBie
ebe050 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 6 20:14:50 UTC 2020
Hello,
In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist
anymore. I didn't want to delete his work complete and
deleted highway=path and replaced it by historic=path and left
name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map.
Regards,
Erik
Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
> Hi,
>
> The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted
> some bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now.
> The user also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly.
> If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user
> block. A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be
> that we might be forced to just revert all their work.
>
> Best,
> Joost
>
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck
> <wouter.hamelinck at gmail.com <mailto:wouter.hamelinck at gmail.com>>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims
> of the mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep
> vicinal ways open. I am also aware that certain ways are only
> accessible certain times of the year due to vegetation etc. Even
> if a path is not visible at the moment you pass there, it might be
> at other times of the year. In general I advocate leaving paths
> through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights of way. My
> reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind of
> path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way
> crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put
> those in OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>
> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets
> that you linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to
> check only one example, this is a good one:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389 There is no place in
> OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing the situation
> on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to follow
> that track. So I would say to revert changes like that.
>
> As for the arguments of the mapper:
> * Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner.
> Nobody will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way
> open because I just put it on a website where everybody can put
> things".
> * It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on
> a daily basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions
> in OSM makes it useless for them. They don't care where they
> should be able to pass in theory. They want to know where they can
> pass in reality.
>
> In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious
> advantage for his personal use and by doing that makes the data
> useless for all other users. For me it is clear that those ways
> should be removed.
>
> Regards,
> Wouter
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet
> <matthieu at gaillet.be <mailto:matthieu at gaillet.be>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or
> "vicinal” ways. By disappeared I mean they are physically
> absolutely not existent on the ground. They were either plowed
> or constructions were built right on them.
>
> I believe it goes against the general rule that states that
> one might only map what’s visible on the field. Additionally
> the mapping itself was poorly done and the source mentioned
> was not relevant.
>
> Using the tag [
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility>trail]_visibility
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility>=no
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:trail_visibility%3Dno&action=edit&redlink=1> is
> not an option here since the user decided to map a
> unmaintained track road (with width = 4m !) that doesn’t offer
> such option.
>
> He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those
> paths was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner
> in a discussion about the openness and accessibility of
> surrounding paths for the general public. He promised to
> delete the date once the case will be closed.
>
>> Les sentiers et chemins que j'ai repris sur OSM sont
>> légalement toujours existants et personne n'est en droit
>> d'empêcher quiconque de les utiliser, de les réhabiliter ou
>> de les débroussailler... c'est une façon de mettre la
>> pression sur le riverain... dès que des alternatives auront
>> été créées et un bon accord conclu, j'effacerai les données
>> au profit des alternatives qui auront été proposées.
>
> The changesets :
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927383
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927894
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927825
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566
>
>
> What do you think ? I believe that’s not a good way of doing
> things (I don’t believe in maptivism in this situation) but
> can’t really find a clear position of the community about this
> particular case.
>
> I don’t want to start a fight with that user because he’s
> really doing a great job at preserving the right of use of
> those heritage vicinal ways by confronting the Communes
> against those unfair owners. I would like to show him some
> string arguments to explain him why his initiative is not good
> for the community (If that’s the case).
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> Matthieu Gaillet
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> --
> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
> - Thor Heyerdahl
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20200806/fb25dac0/attachment.htm>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list