Hello all,

I have re-added the trails removed in this region as I was able to confirm that they still are being used. I have marked them as:

highway=path
surface=ground
informal=yes

I was unable to find any legal access restrictions on the CRD website except a general disclaimer to remain on marked trails. If there are access restrictions signs in-person then please add those legal access restriction tags. For example, if there is a sign posted by the CRD saying the trail is closed then you can mark the trail as

access=no

If there are no signs or any other communications marking the trails as closed then you might consider instead marking the trails as

access=discouraged

Discouraged could be applicable here since the CRD mentions on their website "Stay on marked trails" and these are informal unmarked trails. But this is up to local interpretation.

In the future, it is OpenStreetMap policy and best practice to not delete trails, even if they have been closed or have been actively removed. For trails that have been closed you should use a legal access restriction. For trails that have been actively removed you should use a lifecycle prefix. Otherwise the trails may be added back by an unknowing user with even less details.

Cheers, eerib

Hello Beeeom,

I recommend reading the official OpenStreetMap policy and explainer page regarding trail deletions.

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

If you have further questions regarding the policy you can start a discussion thread on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Hello Beeeom,

Trails of this kind should not be deleted. Refer to:

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

If the trail is unsanctioned, you can add the informal=yes tag.

If a trail crosses into private property then you can split the trail at the property boundary and add access=private to the portion within the private property.

If you require help figuring out the correct tags to use then you can seek help on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Hello Beeeom,

Trails of this kind should not be deleted. Refer to:

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

If the trail is unsanctioned, you can add the informal=yes tag.

If a trail crosses into private property then you can split the trail at the property boundary and add access=private to the portion within the private property.

If you require help figuring out the correct tags to use then you can seek help on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

I think that's a good compromise. I have no objections.

Hello Sun2306,

The issue you raised has been addressed in a myriad of community discussions. A useful starting point is the discussion titled "Documenting the problems with 'highway=path’"

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/documenting-the-problems-with-highway-path/119103/44

The trail in question, known as the Behemoth Line, is a pro-line mountain bike trail featuring cleared bedrock surfaces, ladder bridges, skinnies, and drops in a continuous line. Because it's a linear trail (or "line") and the fact that it has been successfully traversed, albeit only possible by highly experienced riders, is why it has been mapped using a way with the highway=path tag.

While your safety concerns are understood, the most effective course of action would be to contact the trail-building team directly and request that the trail be fully dismantled, rather than attempting to remove it from the OpenStreetMap database. Should they decline, you may escalate the matter by contacting the District Recreation Officer for the Sea to Sky Recreation District, who can forward your complaint to Compliance and Enforcement for investigation and removal. I would advise using the reporting function only as a last resort. Alternatively, you might consider engaging other mountain bike riders who may be willing to assist.

Bear in mind, the Squamish River Branch 200 permit road has two washed out culverts from the recent atmospheric river event. These conditions significantly limit access to the trail, further mitigating the safety concerns previously noted.

Thank you, eerib

Hello Sungod2306,

The video linked below was recorded approximately one month after the release of the Trolldom film and depicts the trail intact, with only two boards removed. This observation is consistent with photographs taken from across the valley that I have reviewed over the past few months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nh0a50V7v0

I expect to be in the Squamish Valley next year to survey several trails and hope to have an opportunity to assess the current condition of the trails in this area at that time.

I have added several additional tags to better represent the trail’s difficulty. While the existing tagging is not a perfect fit due to the trail’s unique characteristics, I plan to submit a proposal in the coming months to introduce additional tags that more accurately describe mountain bike trails of this nature.

I do not believe that the inclusion of this trail in the OpenStreetMap database constitutes an unreasonable risk to public safety. The trail’s difficulty is likely to discourage almost all users from attempting to ride it. Furthermore, an individual would need to make a deliberate and informed decision to replace the two removed boards prior to attempting the trail. If you continue to consider the trail to pose a significant public safety concern, I recommend first contacting the trail-building team to request that the trail be fully dismantled. Should they decline to do so, you may then choose to report the matter to the District Recreation Officer for the Sea to Sky Recreation District, who would forward the complaint to Compliance and Enforcement for investigation and removal.

Thank you,
eerib

What may help is marking the trails with the correct access tags.

If the public is restricted from using the trails at all times then you can mark them as access=private.

If the public can use some of the trails then you can mark those specific trails as access=yes or access=permissive depending on the specific legality.

If you want to get more granular then you can mark each individual mode, such as foot=yes, horse=no, motor_vehicle=no, motorcycle=no, bicycle=no, mtb=no, atv=no.

If this is done then apps like AllTrails, Gaia GPS, and OnX will display the trails with those access details, however it may take a few months for those apps to update. Usually they'll mark the trail in red and append the text "(PRIVATE)" or "(NO ACCESS)" to the end of the trail name if a trail is marked with access=no.

You may also want to consider putting up signage at entry points and along trails at certain intervals to inform the public of the restrictions.

Re-opened yesterday, a bit later than anticipated. I switched everything back to what it was before.

Still significant constructions works occurring with temporary detours expected for a few more months.

Hello Shinsplints,

Thank you for providing the photos. Looks like Metro Vancouver changed the signage within the past few days.

In the future, it would be helpful to mention that Metro Vancouver has updated the signs in your changeset explanation. This way it's clear to other editors why the name change of a feature has occurred and rule out potential vandalism (a common problem with mountain bike trails in this region, as you're aware).

Cheers, eerib

Hello Shinsplints,

I am once again reminding you that the trail is signed at both ends as "Newt Trail". You can see photographs of the two signs at the imgur link provided below.

https://imgur.com/a/ESongBN

Hello Shinsplints,

Note that this trail is signed at both ends as "Newt Trail", hence why the primary name is now Newt Trail.

https://imgur.com/a/ESongBN

Hello nyanpsyche,

My understanding of the release was that there are two official names: one in the downriver dialect of Halkomelem and one in English. Further, my understanding is that both names will be available on signage, similar to signs along the Sea-to-Sky highway and Sunshine Coast highway.

My preference is to not use the "name" tag at all when there are multiple languages, to avoid exactly this type of situation, however the OSM community's preference is for the most commonly used local name to be used in the "name" tag.

There are five main points why I believe the default name should therefore be in English.

1. This is a primarily English speaking region and only 1,410 people, according to StatsCan, can speak Halkomelem (presumably even less for the downriver dialect and presumably even less for written ability).

2. If people were to type the name of this bridge they will most likely use the English name. My belief is that the majority of people would only use the written Halkomelem name if they were to copy and paste it.

3. My observation of other Indigenous names in this region like šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmasəm (Musqueamview Street) and sθәqәlxenәm ts'exwts'áxwi7 (Rainbow Park) has shown that the English name is the most commonly used name. For example, Google Maps uses the English name for both of these features. For the Muqueamview Street, both the City of Vancouver's own VanMap service and Canada Post are using the English name.

4. Picking an indigenous language to show as the default name can be controversial due to disputes over traditional territory boundaries. For example, in the renaming of Musequeamview Street the Musqueam were for the name choice and the Squamish were against it. By selecting an indigenous language and dialect as the default this can be seen as picking a side in these disputes.

5. By going with the Halkomelem name it encourages well meaning people to rename or append other features with an indigenous name in spite of indigenous names not being commonly used by the wider general public.

I hope this helps explain my rationale.

Just a typo. Fixed in latest CS. Thank you!

I believe there are a dozen or so different dialects for Halkomelem and even within the same dialect different native tribes will use different words for the same feature. It's all very complicated and not really well solved at this moment.

I sort of recall the "χe:t̕ᶿenəxʷ" name being from the Musqueam tribe, which speaks the downriver dialect.

Reverted changeset/174969864 - Vandalism

Reverted changeset/174969644, 174969562 - Vandalism

Reverted changeset/174969644, 174969562 - Vandalism

This edit isn't meant to completely fix the import issue. It just resolves the use of parcel cadastre data as landuse and resolves the overlapping landuse that results.

Something to note is that reservation is required to access and reservations are very limited. There are two types of reservations available: parking spot and a shuttle bus spot.

Other access modes haven't been addressed by Metro Vancouver, like cycling, kayaking, or hiking into the park.