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

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/02/2022 17:38, Phil Endecott via Talk-GB wrote:
> Andy Townsend wrote:
>> On 08/02/2022 14:47, Phil Endecott via Talk-GB wrote:
>>> Andy Townsend wrote:
>>>> * 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
>>>
>>> As someone who is potentially "misrepresenting" this path,
>>> what advice would the DWG offer me? 
>>
>> To be honest, Gruff who started this thread is better placed than me 
>> to answer that.
>
> Gruff, if you're still reading this, Andy has passed the buck back to
> you. What is your advice?
>
> This is going round in circles...
>
> Gruff: Hello, I'm relatively new to OSM, I believe this path shouldn't
> be shown, what to do?
>
> Everyone: Assuming it's not totally invented, keep it but tag it and
> blame the data consumers / apps / etc. if they still display it.
>
> Andy: If you find maps and apps that misrepresent the path ... tell DWG.
>
> Me: How exactly am I supposed to filter out this path without also
> losing the important path from Scafell Pike to Mickledoor, and who
> knows what other collateral damage?
>
> Andy: "Gruff is better placed than me to answer that."
>
>

To recap, what Gruff actually said originally was:

> A quick check of our statistics show that we've attended 13 incidents 
> here over the last 4 years, but my experience tells me that a great 
> many more will have had negative experiences along this track without 
> having to involve the rescue team.
and I said:

> 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
You then said:

> As someone who is potentially "misrepresenting" this path,
> what advice would the DWG offer me? 
and I replied:

> To be honest, Gruff who started this thread is better placed than me 
> to answer that.  I'd suggest that it's going to depend on who your 
> maps are targetted at - if it's the "determined mountain hiker", and 
> people understand what they might find, then it makes perfect sense to 
> show it.  If it's the "person on Snowdon in flip=flops" mentioned in 
> another post, I wouldn't show it. 

To recap, there are two issues here:

 1. Some data may be mistagged in OSM.
 2. Some maps and apps may present data to a set of users for whom it is
    not suitable, or exclude data when it should be presented as it _is_
    suitable.

With regard to the first of these, someone who's familiar with each area 
(in Gruff's case https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029 , in your 
example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24564464 ) is best placed to 
say how something should best be tagged.  Gruff updated the tags on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982094029 6 days ago.

With regard to your example, you said:

> I've just done an overpass turbo query to look for 
> trail_visibility=horrible
> and it includes the main path from the summit of Scafell Pike to
> Mickledoor. It's not shown on your map. 
and I said:

> Funny you mention that - I actually queried the sac_scale there with 
> the mapper who added that tag 3 years ago:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59901184
>
> I haven't updated it myself because I haven't been there for ages.  If 
> it's wrong, please change it!
Not having been there for a _very_ long time I don't want to assume that 
my dim recollection is better that other people's recent local knowledge.


With regard to the second point, Gruff's also more likely than me to 
know what maps were "getting users into trouble" near Snowdon. I 
suggested that if a particular map or app doesn't warn about potential 
difficulty and arguably should do so for its target market, to let the 
DWG know as we might know a way to contact the author.

As to whether your maps are targetted more at the "determined mountain 
hiker" or the stereotypical "person on Snowdon in flip=flops" you'll 
know better than me; I'm guessing (assuming that 
https://ukmapapp.com/free_maps.html is the right site) that it'll more 
likely be the former than the latter.

One slight caveat with those though is over access - I'm sat just north 
of https://ukmapapp.com/map_screenshots/maps_york.jpeg right now, and 
your screenshot shows far more public footpaths in that area than there 
actually are - Have a look at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/Screen_2022021101_001.png * , which 
shows far fewer than the "maps_york" screenshot.  However, that's an 
issue very much tangential to sac_scale and trail_visibility.

Best Regards,

Andy

* Created by superimposing https://osm.cycle.travel/rights_of_way (local 
authority public footpath data) over 
https://b.os.openstreetmap.org/layer/gb_os_om_local_2020_04/ (OS OpenMap 
Local).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220211/c0f49adf/attachment.htm>