[Talk-GB] Advice please: Goat tracks in mountain areas

[Gruff Owen]

Hi all,

Thanks so much for all of your thoughts on this. I'm bowled over by the
amount of knowledge and enthusiasm there is out there!

I'm currently leaning towards amending the tags for the Way rather than
removing it altogether. Being a very popular mountain, and the route is
walked by some, I think there is a good chance someone would replace the
Way if it were removed - as a number of folks have suggested.

Thanks to everyone who's suggested suitable Tags for this track. I think
I'll go-ahead and add the below and include a reference to this discussion
in the changeset.

sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking
trail_visibility=horrible
width=narrow


I was interested to read the discussion about the use of highway=path for
mountaineering routes. It sounds to me that highway=path + sac_scale=*
should be sufficient in most circumstances and that the debate is more
about the semantics of the word "path" than the practicalities of its use?
Happy to be corrected though! I guess a lot of Tag discussions on OSM are
about semantics.

I was also interested to read of some similar examples in Macquarie Pass
National Park. This sounds like a similar scenario - although the Park
Authority haven't requested a change in this instance.

I'll leave both bicycle=no and horse=no there for now as well, not out of
subjective belief of route unsuitability - although it almost certainly is
unsuitable for horse or bike! - but because there is currently no right to
use CRoW access land on a horse or bike

Thanks again for all of your help and the interesting discussion.

All the best,

Gruff

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 at 00:06, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:

> I haven't seen any discussion of this tag as informal=yes or perhaps
> usefully extended to informal=animal_track
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
>
> And FYI, there is a whole discussion on discouraged or closed paths in
> talk-au where park rangers are often keen to completely remove such paths.
> Opinion is split on whether that is a good idea or whether they should stay
> with appropriate tagging for navigation purposes (which as a hiker who
> occasionally got confused with OS maps not showing everything on the ground
> - I agree whole heartedly) and "well, it will just get put back".
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/thread.html
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/015541.html
>
> Mike
> On 2022-02-06 07:50, Tom Crocker wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022, 16:59 Dudley Ibbett, <dudleyibbett at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If there is an issue of this becoming popular then I guess the land owner
>> will need to make a decision about whether they want to discourage access
>> on the ground by putting up notices/fences to avoid further erosion of the
>> landscape.  I have seen this done by the National Trust and other
>> organisations.
>>
>> Again, if safety is a real issue a warning notice on the ground might be
>> a consideration.
>>
>
> If signs were put up then access=discouraged; foot=discouraged tags would
> seem appropriate, although again whether they are evaluated appropriately
> is another matter.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20220206/f1175d5e/attachment-0001.htm>