[Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Jez Nicholson]

Indeed, Frederik speaks wise words.

The role of OSMUK has been to handhold, that is 'support or guide (someone)
during a learning process or a period of change'. We've been there to
encourage them to work with the community to identify how they might tag,
and for them to publish their plans.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:48 PM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 02.09.19 15:30, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> > Following on from their talk at the OSMUK AGM, the National Trust have
> > now created an official 'organised edit' page for their footpath
> > project
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths
>
> It sounds like a well thought out plan.
>
> From a DWG perspective there's one small warning light that I have in my
> head, triggered by terms like "standard" and "validated": It must be
> clear to everyone involved that ultimate authority over what gets mapped
> and how does not lie with the National Trust, and neither does OSMUK
> have a mandate to enter into agreements on behalf of the OSM community
> that would determine exactly which ways may be mapped, and what tags to
> use.
>
> As long as everyone in this project is clear that it is ultimately local
> mappers who get to say what goes in, and that they don't need agreement
> from the National Trust or from OSMUK, then I guess all is well.
>
> At DWG, we frequently have issues where organisations like the NT (or
> smaller, local woodland trusts and the like) would like OSM to delete
> outright a track that clearly exists in reality, because they say it
> "leads to misunderstandings" or "is not official" or "is dangerous" or
> something. To which of course the usual reply is "let us tag the correct
> situation in OSM, but a track that clearly exists cannot be deleted".
> Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
> absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
> verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
> away - this is also a case where we'd usually say "put up a sign, or put
> up with cars".
>
> Sometimes the goals of these conservation organisations are opposed to
> those we have in OSM - they often want to direct human activity in a
> certain desired way, whereas we want to depict reality as good as we can
> and let humans make their choice based on that.
>
> A cooperation like the one described here can be beneficial to all sides
> if one is aware of exactly where the parties have the same goals, and
> where the goals might differ, and establish clear rules for these cases.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20190902/8a233610/attachment.html>