[Talk-GB] “No path”

[Andy Townsend]

I completely agree with regard to beach sections of LDPs, such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/400098#map=12/-35.0135/117.2243 
(in Western Australia) and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3285170#map=14/51.5619/-4.1443&layers=H 
(South Wales).  The latter has got all the Wales Coast Path signage in 
it that I could find in that area; I couldn't find any on the beach 
itself.  The former has occasional signage at best.

 > 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

If the exit from a field is obvious (e.g. gate visible at the far side) 
I probably wouldn't mark it as a low trail_visibility, as it's obvious 
where you need to go.  It's not like 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/820162969 , where the sign that you're 
aiming for is far enough not to be visible from the other end.

Best Regards,

Andy


On 08/01/2023 12:35, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230108/9f7c8faf/attachment.htm>