[OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths
Francois Gerin
francois.gerin at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 13:53:28 UTC 2020
Thanks to Pieter for the link https://www.openhistoricalmap.org
=> It deserves more visibility/publicity I think, so as to improve the
cleaning of the main OSM DB...
I'm contributing a lot to balnam too. I make use of it a lot, exactly to
ensure or recover missing paths.
Most of the time (80-90%), balnam does the job well and quickly.
For the rest, I personally contact the local public authority. In the
past, it was not efficient at all and quite discouraging... But now that
slow/sweet mobility is more and more a public topic, I noticed that many
local authorities changed their mind and quickly take actions when I
warn them about some issue.
=> Just got several good results in Andenne (usually never responding)
and Fernelmont (depending on the contact person).
My reactions to the user's comments:
*Comment 1*: Not valid, they try what they can, but they have nothing.
The trick is just a question of communication and the way to address the
point. Just got a serious case again on path 73 in Sclayn
<https://www.balnam.be/sclayn/chemin/73>, but it's the last one of a
long series, which allowed me to refine my approach.
=> Balnam is definitely the way to go, they indeed use also various
maps, including federal ones that are no more accessible to us. Also,
the local authorities have access to these maps, we still made use of
them in Andenne in July.
*Comment 2*: The IGN failure is a distinct story. Sad for them, but not
related to the topic. There are regulations, local authorities have to
comply to them. I never and will probably never make use of IGN anymore,
they're "dead" because they did not adapt to the modern reality. Even
the military guys I met in the woods of Marche-les-Dames use OSM, more
up to date...
Again, nowadays local authorities eventually comply and react, much more
than a few years ago. The best is to make use of this!
*Comment 3*: The user points himself exactly to balnam... Red lines are
very visible, much more than a simple OSM map, and make a good support
for the discussion with local authorities. Just for the demo, look at
all the paths that were suppressed in the area of Groyenne
<https://www.balnam.be/andenne/sentier/195>. The balnam layer makes it
very clear...
The main point is that balnam is based on volunteers, it's not an
official service. But here again, due to the recent changes I'm quite
convinced that things are evolving in the good direction: more and more
people use balnam, more and more local authorities face discussions on
this, more and more people contribute to surveillance... The recent
results I got were not possible a few years ago, now they are. At some
point, there will be a public service to take over balnam... That's a
good way to force a reaction. Once enough people are aware, public
figures take care of the topic, and here it's very positive.
=> If the user wishes, he can contact me: fgerin on OSM, fge1 on balnam.
++
F
On 7/08/20 13:50, Matthieu wrote:
> Thanks for these clarifications.
>
> The user agreed to revert, not without explaining why he still
> believes that the ways should be mapped. I quote him below for the
> completeness. I advised him to use balsam (ironically he *IS* a balnam
> volunteer !), will refer it to OHM too.
>
>> Le premier réflexe qu'a un accapareur lorsqu'il est confronté à des
>> autorités communales est le plus souvent d'indiquer que la voirie
>> n'existe même pas sur carte, le deuxième sera de dire qu'elle n'est
>> pas visible sur les photos aériennes.....
>> Bref, je crois qu'on est pas du tout sur la même longueur d'onde et
>> je le regrette.
>
>> Pour la petite histoire, un nombre important de voiries ont disparu
>> _*suite*_ au fait qu'elles n'étaient plus reprises sur l'IGN (souvent
>> par négligence des géographes de terrain)
>> La voirie que vous voulez pouvoir utiliser sans que le propriétaire
>> du manège ne vous interpelle est un voirie innomée sans véritable
>> statut tant qu'elle n'a pas été reconnue comme communale par la
>> commune (procédure longue et difficile, actuellement rarement mise en
>> oeuvre). C'est une voirie privée.
>
>> Pour tenter de la rendre communale, la méthode la plus
>> souvent utilisée est d'indiquer au riverain toutes les voiries qui
>> ont disparues (qu'il a volé), cette disposition permet de
>> "culpabiliser" l'accapareur qui, bien souvent, accepte par la suite
>> certaines concessions.
>
>> *Je m'incline et j'enlève d'OSM les voiries publiques accaparées
>> autour des Hayettes.*
>>
>
> Matthieu
>
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:44, Pieter Vander Vennet <pietervdvn at posteo.net
>> <mailto:pietervdvn at posteo.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on
>> OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .
>>
>> The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work
>> together with Balnam.be <http://Balnam.be> (in Wallonia) or Trage
>> Wegen VZW (for Flanders). They have this kind of experience and they
>> know which historical sources to use (such as the 'atlas trage
>> buurtwegen' and a whole heap of different maps).
>>
>> Even though I sympathise deeply with the contributor, OSM is not a
>> place for razed paths - it clutters the database too much and it
>> becomes very unclear what is in scope for OSM. Do we map razed
>> buildings too? When do we delete them? When they are razed 5yrs ago?
>> 10yrs ago? 100yrs ago? Again, all these /are/ welcome in
>> OpenHistoricalMap, where there is some support by giving end-dates.
>>
>> To touch on the topic of Wegspotter - he too mapped a lot of razed
>> roads which frustrated many within the community. Due to some stupid
>> techical issue, it took a long time before the community could get in
>> touch with him. Once we finally got in touch, we could synchronize
>> and align.
>>
>> Kind regards, Pieter
>>
>> On 07.08.20 08:53, joost schouppe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of
>>> paths somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous
>>> discussions that there is some consensus that paths that are really,
>>> really gone (there's a building on top; or there's a lot of fences
>>> or overgrowth; it doesn't re-appear from time to time) do not belong
>>> in OSM at all. Then again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort
>>> to clean them out of the database.
>>>
>>> When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual
>>> highway type, then they should be stopped.
>>>
>>> Mathieu,
>>> You say "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."
>>> I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this
>>> in private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe
>>> some other people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can
>>> still change their mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Joost
>>>
>>> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet
>>> <matthieu at gaillet.be <mailto:matthieu at gaillet.be>>:
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> A search led me to this discussion
>>> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails which
>>> emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes.
>>>
>>> Matthieu G. (en mode mobile)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthieu G. (en mode mobile)
>>>> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie <ebe050 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:ebe050 at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> 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 <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> --
>> Met vriendelijke groeten,
>> Pieter Vander Vennet
>> <pietervdvn.vcf>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200807/fe36bce9/attachment.htm>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list