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

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/02/2022 02:12, Gruff Owen wrote:
> 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
>
Hello,

To echo some of what's already been said and also add a few more comments:

  * If something is really not any sort of path (e.g. at no point in the
    year would anyone stand at one end and say "there's a path from here
    to there") then it absolutely makes sense to remove it.  It sounds
    from what you are saying that this isn't the case here, but I
    regularly remove paths from OSM that either simply aren't there any
    more or perhaps never were there in the first place.  If you do
    remove anything, I'd actually suggest leaving the way in place,
    removing the tags and adding a note explaining why it's not really
    any sort of path*. If it was definitely some sort of path
    historically then some lifecycle prefix for the highway tag might
    work***.
  * If it should be there, but "sac_scale", "trail_visibility" or even
    "hazard" tags are appropriate, then please do add them, and perhaps
    split the path in the relevant place and add whatever tags apply to
    the relevant piece.  Not all tags will be read by all maps and apps,
    but once the tags are there we can start badgering the relevant maps
    and apps that don't already to honour them**.
  * Personally, if I haven't actually surveyed something, and am worried
    that there might be hazards in an area that would be important to
    note, I wouldn't map it at all until I had actually been there.
  * Strava on its own is a pretty poor source for OSM.  Strava users
    seem to be a particular sort of person - someone who will hop over a
    wall to save a few seconds rather than following the signposts and
    going through a gate.  Strava's heatmap is a useful secondary
    source, but is only that.
  * If you find maps and apps that misrepresent the path, or show it to
    a readership that probably shouldn't be encouraged to use it, then
    perhaps let OSM's Data Working Group know via email to
    data at openstreetmap.org .  I'm a member of that, and while we can't
    force map consumers to do anything we may be able to point you in
    the right direction with various apps and websites so that your
    comments go to the right people.  The relevant issue at for the
    "standard" map that you see at openstreetmap.org (unfortunately
    still open) seems to be
    https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1500 .


> 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
>
There's a whole other discussion to be had about tagging both the 
legality and the appropriateness of something for various modes of 
transport but you are absolutely right that bicycle=no and horse=no are 
correct here in OSM terms if it's CRoW Act access land and no more than 
that.  "foot=yes" is probably also correct for the same reason - but 
just because something is legal to access doesn't mean that it's a good 
idea or even physically possible - and the other tags that you've added 
can be used by apps to decide whether to show it or not - a "leisurely 
amble in the countryside" app could decide not to show it, but a 
"hardcore mountain hiker one" could.

Best Regards,

Andy

* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/829362523 is a 
(non-life-threatening) example of that

** Currently the tags that you've added to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029 have made it disappear from 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=53.07435&lon=-4.07194 
(disclaimer - my site) which is entirely correct.

*** https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220207/05d619ca/attachment.htm>