[Talk-us] OSM US Trails Working Group

[Greg Troxel]

(It seems that most of this conversation will exclude those who don't
want to use proprietary services to discuss open data.   Perhaps a
matrix or IRC bridge to slack would help that.)

Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> writes:

> In OSM we map what is actually on the ground, not what someone would like
> to be on the ground.  We are like "spatial journalists", and like
> journalists, we report (map) the facts (does the US Government try to tell
> the NY Times what to publish? Only in extreme circumstances.).  There will
> always be those who claim that the "facts are dangerous" and therefore
> should not be reported, and I am sure one can find isolated cases where
> this is true (this is not limited to trails or OSM, it seems that every few
> months there is a story of someone in their Honda Civic (e.g.) taking a
> "shortcut" that appears on their navigation app as a 4x4 road that only a
> rock crawler could traverse - no substitute for common sense).   But more
> often than not, the danger is to the particular group that desires these
> facts be suppressed.
>
> If there really is a problem, land managers can post signs "no off trail
> use", "not a trail", etc., and enforce such.
>
> I have talked to a number of search and rescue people that actually use OSM
> because it does contain so called "social trails."  It may also help legal
> land users remain safe.  A few years ago there were a number of deaths on
> Capitol Peak in Colorado because hikers had gotten off route.  I and
> another mapper added the "trail" to the peak to OSM (note, not NPS land).
>
> In addition, my experience with the NPS trail data is that it is often in
> error, and they refuse to fix it, and even acknowledge that it could be
> wrong.
>
> Finally, removing this valuable content from OSM will not achieve the ends
> the NPS and others want to achieve as it appears independently in a number
> of apps.


Well said, and agreed.

It could be useful to have more nuanced rendering of trails in carto,
with tags used to indicate if trails are authorized/maintained or not,
and symbolized differently.  I know we like to discount the official
render, but there is much less motivation for people to add details if
they are not used in www.openstreetmap.org.

One thing I have been doing is ensuring access tags are correct.  In
conservation areas near me, the posted rules say that trails on the
official map are open to walking, bicycles, and horses, and that
bicycles and horses are prohibited from unmaintained trails.  So I have
tagged things appropriatel.

I have also heard complaints about OSM showing reality.  Sometimes it
seems the situation is land managers not being willing to prohibit use
of unofficial trails while being willing to complain about public true
statements about those trails.  I have also received complaints from two
people that are not land managers about OSM showing trails that the land
manager posted rules say people can use.  I don't think it's reasonable
for OSM to remove such data, or to tag access incorrectly, to work
around this inconsistent position.

Recently some people in the woods were found and led out by the police.
I need to ask, but I am guessing the police were using OSM, because the
trails the people were on (by their phones reporting location to 911
dispatch) are shown on OSM but I am not aware of them being shown on
other maps.

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211008/cf955e52/attachment.sig>