[Talk-GB] “No path”

[Edward Catmur]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 13:37, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
That depends on conditions, does it not? A gate that is obvious on a clear,
sunny day may be a challenge to find at night or in fog.

I guess you could argue that a foot-worn trail that's obvious on the ground
in summer may be obscured by snow from time to time. But that feels
different somehow.

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>
> <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 listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230108/6faf7f0f/attachment-0001.htm>