Revert changeset/177863952, 177863808, 177863316 - Vandalism & Deceit (AI edited photo)

changeset/177866248

Revert changeset/177863952, 177863808, 177863316 - Vandalism & Deceit (AI edited photo)

changeset/177866248

Hello cwms16,

Be mindful that the trail entrance and exit are plainly visible in satellite imagery.

https://imgur.com/a/YkqUeZs

Yari na, eerib

Hello cwms16,

Thank you for your edit. Unfortunately it does not meet OpenStreetMap standards. Please refer to the following wiki page.

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

If you have further questions regarding the policies or trail mapping in general then I recommend starting a discussion thread on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org

If you would like to dispute this revert of your edit then you can reach out to the Data Working Group, the moderation group of OpenStreetMap by sending an email to the following email address.

data@openstreetmap.org

Thank you, eerib

Hello Beeeom,

I’m sorry to hear that you feel this way. I have made several attempts to explain the OpenStreetMap standards, including sharing links to relevant wiki pages to help you become more familiar with them. I have also suggested reaching out to the OpenStreetMap Community Forum for additional support or guidance.

In addition, I provided information on how to participate in the Trails Stewardship Initiative to advocate for your perspective, as well as how to propose changes or new standards within OpenStreetMap. I hope you will find these resources helpful and take the opportunity to review them.

Thank you,
eerib

Hello Beeeom,

I have explained to you in changeset #176911989 discussion thread how access tags are applied.

If you would like to submit a complaint you can do so by emailing the Data Working Group - the moderation group of OpenStreetMap - at the following email.

data@openstreetmap.org

If you continue to ignore OpenStreetMap standards then your account may lose editing privileges' until you acknowledge the standards.

Thank you, eerib

Hello Beeeom,

The trails are correctly split at the cutblock boundary, have the destroyed lifecycle prefix for trails within the cutblock, and have the correct access restriction for the remaining portions of trail.

Thank you, eerib

Hello Beeeom,

The trail is split at the private property boundary and the segment on private property is correctly marked private.

Thank you, eerib

Hello Beeeom,

If you have suggestions on how to improve OpenStreetMap standards or how to improve outreach then I recommend opening a discussion topic on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

You may also consider joining the Trails Stewardship Initiative, which is a focus group of governments, app developers, and volunteers working to address issues in trail mapping, outdoor recreation, and public land management.

You also have the option of proposing new standards, which you can find out more information about that process on the following wiki page.

osm.wiki/Proposal_process

You may not know that TrailForks, like many outdoor applications, uses OpenStreetMap data in it's TrailForks Topo, Streets, and Dark basemaps, references OpenStreetMap, and regularly imports OpenStreetMap data including trails into their proprietary database.

Thank you, eerib

Hello Beeeom,

This trail was originally added almost a decade ago by a user who visited the area. The data became stale due to a lack of volunteers in the Nelson area. This is not a valid reason to insult those volunteers in your changeset comments. Please maintain a professional conduct.

You can learn more about changeset comment best practices on the following wiki page.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thank you, eerib

Hello Beeeom,

Tags such as access, foot, bicycle, and motor_vehicle are legal access tags and values should only be applied to where there is a formal legal grant or restriction.

For provincial crown lands, the Permission Policy provides the formal legal grant to access crown lands, including unsanctioned trails.

For closures on provincial crown land, a formal legal restriction needs to be in the form of a Ministerial Order under the Land Act, Wildlife Act, or another applicable Act. You can learn more about crown land closures on the following government page.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/crown-land-water/crown-land/land-use-application/crown-land-closure

Thank you, eerib

Hello Beeeom,

The tag leisure=nature_reserve is for nature reserve boundaries, not for trails. I have replaced this tag with the tags:

ownership=public
operator=BC Parks

and

ownership=private
operator=Anderson Creek Timber Company Ltd

You can find out more information about the OpenStreetMap standards on the OpenStreetMap wiki.

leisure=nature_reserve

ownership=*

operator=*

If there are ever any questions regarding the standards then you could open a discussion topic on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Thank you, eerib

Hello InfilNorth,

You may want to discuss a protected bike lane mapping standard for the region with other users mapping bike lanes in the Vancouver, Burnaby, and Tri-cities areas as they seem to be mapping them as separate ways.

@ngry_pazuzu

@keithonearth

@nyanpsyche

(Personally I do not care what standard we go with)

Cheers, eerib

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