[Talk-GB] Fwd: Private tracks through a farmyard

Fri Apr 22 11:30:28 UTC 2022

LS
If I may, just a comment on " ...Your edits are leading people off the
footpaths..."
A map does not lead people. Any road or track on the map may have access
constraints, that's common knowledge. Routers do lead people, but routers
commonly honour the access tags. Of course, when people are caught
trespassing, they will blame the map or the router!
The sensible thing to do for the owners is to visibly indicate that the
road, track or path is not generally accessible. Deleting it from the map
will not prevent trespassing.

If the map shows a route over this track, the owners have a
point, routes do lead people there. The action would then be to remove the
element from the route relation (with a note).

On the other hand, private tracks are not very interesting
for general purposes, so if the owner is adamant it shouldn't be on the
map, I would not insist too long. It's not worth a war.

*Case story*
In Nederland, we have had many discussions with foresters
("Staatsbosbeheer", SBB) about tracks and paths which are clearly visible
and often not marked as private or forbidden, but they would like them to
disappear from the map. Since it is often about nature and reserved areas,
they do not want to put signs and fences everywhere. The idea is that the
tracks will overgrow naturally, which doesn't happen if people keep using
them for exploring, running and off-road cycling. We have agreed with SBB
that they will indicate by natural means (planting thorny bushes or placing
logs) that the path is disused, and that OSM will have the track or path as
disused:highway=track or -path with an explanatory note=* tag. We have
alerted them to also look for OSM routes still using the track or path.
This doesn't normally show on maps, and it doesn't route, but it could be
shown on special maps, and it prevents random mappers from re-mapping
deleted tracks.

Once the track or path is overgrown, SBB foresters will remove it from OSM.

Regards, Peter Elderson

Op vr 22 apr. 2022 om 00:27 schreef Jass Kurn <jasskurn at gmail.com>:

> This is a tricky one. OS has added OSM way data to some of their free
> products (linked to in other emails). Most end users seeing this data will
> be using free OS apps for walking & hiking. OS are not including OSM access
> data. Apart from Public Footpaths/bridleway etc, I believe OS simply do not
> map access data, that appears to be the style with their paper maps. It can
> be argued that OS are simply carrying on with their own historic mapping
> style of showing paths & tracks without access data. These deleted tracks
> in question nearly all appear in OS paper maps also without access info,
> but the style of maps mean they tracks are less obvious. OS appears to have
> decided it is up to the person using the map on the ground to gather the
> access info, and the landowner to clearly show allowed access.
>
> The OSM data was correct; the use of OSM data by subsequent data users
> must not be grounds for the track to simply be deleted. I am sympathetic
> with the issues faced by the land owner, but the solution must not be the
> deletion of correct data. If it was allowed, the misuse of OSM could result
> in most of our data slowly disappearing. A solution would be for someone to
> reach out to OS to ask for access data to be included, or for them not to
> show ways with access=private. But... this implies OS should be doing the
> same thing with their paper maps. If they accept a problem  is caused in
> one instance, can they then ignore the same issue in their paper maps?
>
> I think the data must be reinstated. Maybe someone can reach out to the
> landowner explaining it is an OS issue (if someone misuses their milk they
> should not be forced to stop producing it?), and also put the problem to OS?
>
> Jass
>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 19:29, Michael Booth <boothym at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OSM paths / tracks now appear in some of their products - if you go to
>> first link there's no tracks, but the banner at the top takes you to the
>> second link which does have them.
>>
>> https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/53.11063,-2.30352,17
>>
>>
>> https://explore.osmaps.com/?lat=53.111347&lon=-2.302351&zoom=15.2478&overlays=&style=Standard&type=2d
>>
>> The tracks (tagged as private) look exactly like the public footpath
>> running across the fields, so I can see why people could follow them if
>> relying on OS maps. OS should really be showing them differently to
>> public paths as no doubt there are other paths and tracks on the map
>> with access restriction which look exactly the same.
>>
>> There is no activity along the tracks on Strava's heatmap, so these are
>> clearly not used by the public (unlike the footpath).
>>
>> But even without using a map, it looks like someone could either wander
>> off the public footpath onto the tracks (at the stile), or join the
>> tracks from the main roads (surely there are signs?). Removing the
>> tracks from OSM won't stop that, and as you say they could just be added
>> again by another mapper who does not know anything about the situation.
>>
>> On 21/04/2022 18:28, George Honeywood wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I've received some messages from a user [1] regarding private tracks
>> that run through their farm. A year ago they deleted these tracks from OSM,
>> and about a month after that I reinstated them, adding access=private [2].
>> >
>> > [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Rob%20Moss/history
>> > [2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102054359
>> >
>> > Since then they have had people walk down these private tracks, and so,
>> have removed them again. From my point of view it is better to leave them
>> on the map, with access=private, as this should discourage people from
>> using these paths -- and prevents another armchair mapper from re-adding
>> them as non private tracks later on.
>> >
>> > I am confused as the people were led down this private track by the "OS
>> APP". This is presumably offered by Ordnance Survey -- which probably
>> wouldn't be using OSM data, and even if it does, it should make private
>> tracks look private, like Mapnik greys them on osm.org.
>> >
>> > I think this is a bit above my pay grade, hence messaging the list (and
>> I won't be making any further edits). Obviously it isn't good to have
>> people walking down dangerous private tracks, but I don't think removing
>> them from OSM is the way to go. If any of you have experience with the OS
>> Maps app then it would be good to know if it uses OSM data, and if so how
>> it handles access=private.
>> >
>> > For context here are the private messages:
>> >
>> > Their first message:
>> >> Dear Sir, we had someone injured yesterday by a herd of cattle using
>> our private farm track. They were on the track when met by 100 cows. They
>> were following an edit done by yourself 10 months ago; the edit to re-add
>> the track is showing as a footpath in the OS APP. Your edits are leading
>> people off the footpaths into two busy private farm yards. I am unsure why
>> you would be doing this!? Regards. Rob
>> > My reply:
>> >> Hi Rob,
>> >> Sorry, I think there has been a bit of confusion here.
>> openstreetmap.org, the website/database, isn’t related to the OS Maps
>> app. That app is run by Ordnance Survey, not OpenStreetMap.
>> >> On OpenStreetMap, the farm tracks are a grey colour, which indicates
>> that are private, meaning the public shouldn’t use them. Route planners
>> that use OpenStreetMap data should also reflect this, routing via the
>> public footpaths instead of the private tracks.
>> >> If there are more tracks that need to be marked private in
>> OpenStreetMap, please edit them as such (or you can point out to me which
>> ones need changing and I can edit them). If the issue is with the Ordnance
>> Survey map then you’d be better off speaking to them.
>> >> Apologies for any inconvenience, George
>> > Their second message:
>> >> Dear George, There is no confusion. I have spoken to the OSMaps team
>> and their app is updated from the maps you have edited. Hence my message
>> directly to yourself. I deleted the tracks off the open street map having
>> previously met a family while on the tractor….you then decided you know
>> better than and reinstated them? There was a note connected to the revision
>> which detailed the reason for deleting the tracks. I cannot understand why
>> you would do this, it has caused a lady a nasty injury to her leg. If you
>> genuinely did this as a mistake/didn’t realise the consequences of your
>> actions then please take more care in the future. Regards Rob
>> > Thanks for any thoughts on this,
>> > George Honeywood
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220422/be43e393/attachment.htm>