[Talk-GB] “No path”

[SK53]

Hi Dudley,

Unfortunately, this 'path' seems to be experiencing a bit of an edit war
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/160034461/history>. It's not the only
one, there was a recent similar issue on Causey Pike, where the way
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85797718/history> was recently removed
from OSM.

I'm currently pulling down open data of DEMs with a view of identifying any
other 'paths' in the Lake District which might require review.
There's a strong case for using trail_visibility to help identify such
things, and on any path/footway with any SAC scale from T3
(demanding_mountain_hiking) and above.

Jerry



On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 at 15:49, Dudley Ibbett <dudleyibbett at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Just seen this article in today’s Guardian:
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/hiking-app-alltrails-changes-route-rescue-three-walkers-lake-district
>
> I’m not sure if this is relevant to the data in OSM but it does seem to
> look like a footway/path on the main map if I have correctly located it.
> According to the article, the Mountain rescue team describe it as “no path”
> so it would seem reasonable to ensure the tagging is correct. Perhaps
> someone who has walked this route can review the tagging.
>
> The article doesn’t seem to be criticising the app but more it’s use and
> the understanding of its limitations.   I assume this means there may be a
> way across a screw slope but you should assume it might just be scree.
> I.e. no visible path on the ground.  As such, I assume the app doesn’t
> render trail visibility for example.
>
> Dudley
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230107/9c02e954/attachment.htm>