[Talk-GB] “No path”

[Philip Barnes]

The same here, which thanks to carto rendering of beaches looks a bit odd.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.9066/-4.1676

The same happens in pasture where there is a right of way and entry/exit stiles or kissing gates. The route taken by walkers varies to avoid wet bits and to go around where livestock is grazing at the time 

Phil (trigpoint)

On 8 January 2023 09:45:47 GMT, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have a few Australian 'path' sections that are on beaches .. visibility is truly 0! Yes the surface of the path is sand, as are the beaches concerned. The sections are required to from a route relation that is contiguous.
>
>
>On 8/1/23 03:11, SK53 wrote:
>> 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
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20230108/e874911a/attachment.htm>