Hi Chris,

I'm not doubting or disagreeing with you that these are illegally constructed and closed to the public. I would just like to see OpenStreetMap data accurately reflect the ground truth and I advocate mapping these in OSM as closed or disassembled tracks in a way that allows downstream applications to omit it from their maps.

It's certainly not because we want to have these tracks showing as open for use, I can't see anyone in the community advocating for that.

I suggest Parks Victoria join in the community channels such as the mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or the community forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73 to contribute to how this situation is handled. We have some guidelines at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access but there's always scope to improve them.

Sorry but just claiming this or that can't be done doesn't help with justification or other mappers understanding your motives. At this point there is a clear community consensus against your viewpoint, so the original state is being restored, please respect this.

Can you please explain why they can't be split and why you can't tag change:lanes? They must be split for different change:lanes to be applied. Could you also respond about if you disagree that on the ground matches Bing or it's your interpretation of how dt should be mapped based on the Bing imagery.

A number of people on discord did raise issue with your revert, so it seems against the community consensus. Unless you can further justify, we'll restore back to the original and ask you don't further revert again otherwise we'll need to request your account be blocked

Hi could you please explain what you mean by "can't be split"?. Ways need to be split to apply two different tag values, so it's common to have roads split when there are any physical changes in the road which are tagged.

Hi could you please explain what you mean by "can't be split"?. Ways need to be split to apply two different tag values, so it's common to have roads split when there are any physical changes in the road which are tagged.

I don't understand, why can't they be split as @Ds5rUy did? Are you saying the Bing imagery here is wrong or you just don't agree with the mapping done by @Ds5rUy based on the imagery?

This changeset was reverted in changeset/142748502

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/142786734 the original changes by Ds5rUy appear perfectly valid.

Not sure what you mean. This changeset reverted changeset/142702991 which wasn't yours. I'll go ahead and revert this one as I can't see any justification.

Hi, could you please try to document your justification and reasoning behind a revert changeset in your changeset comments, it would really help the rest of the mapping community to understand your changesets.

In the first instance it's usually best to raise a changeset comment before jumping to a revert.

For this reversion I can't see it being justified, it removes the changes and transition tags which appeared correct.

Have you seen osm.wiki/Proposal:Traffic_signals_set_2 ? You might be interested. Ideally the signal nodes and the relation would have use ref=* set to the 4 digit code.

The name key is for the name only, description=* is a better option for descriptions to show to end map users. I've made the updates accordingly.

For slightly overgrown you might want to consider applying a trail_visibility value.

I've changed this to description per osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I'm keen to understand in more detail the rational behind this, and any references you can point to. I think from there it's worth raising a discussion about more suitable tags you could use.

The ref=* tag ref=* is usually a better number for reference numbers/codes than the name=* tag.

The ref:sap_equip_id tag would probably be better as something like ref:npws to indicate it's NPWS own internal reference (there's an argument for not including this at all but I'm not too fussed).

Some good discussion ongoing about this on talk-au https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2023-September/thread.html I'd encourage NPWS staff to chime in to the thread.

Not wanting something to show on the map is not a sufficient reason to not include it. I wouldn't rely on aerial imagery, many tracks which do exist won't show up as the imagery is not clear or there is simply too much vegetation cover. The lifecycle prefix is in my view the ideal solution, the tracks won't show up on most maps/routers, but the data still exists in the OSM database. Yes some people may still find this and explore them, but we've done out part by tagging them in a way that best reflects what's actually on the ground.

Based on your survey mrpulley, at least in the latter 3 cases it sounds like there would be something on the ground, so in my view we should restore these under the lifecycle prefix with access=no to indicate the closure.

To avoid an edit war, @Firefishy can you comment on if that would be problematic from your side?

Agree with @mrpulley here. If just not officially marked, then informal=yes, and if closed then use the lifecycle prefix if there's still some evidence on the ground.

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths

Thanks.

In this case it's still better to leave the way in OSM and tag it as disused:highway=* and access=no. This would still remove the track from most user facing maps, while leaving it in the database to show there is a closed track present in the area.