OpenStreetMap
eerib's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 124409974 | Hello Mark, Please contact the Data Working Group if you would like to resolve the dispute. Regards, eerib |
|
| 124409974 | Hello Mark, The Data Working Group (data, “ат”openstreetmap“ԁοт”org) is authorised by the Foundation to deal with accusations of copyright infringement, imports, and serious disputes and vandalism. If you believe I am threatening you or breaking the code of conduct then please contact them. If you would like to have the trail altered then please contact them to help resolve this dispute. If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again. Regards, eerib |
|
| 124409974 | Hello Mark, No, I am not threatening to deactivate your account. Only the Data Working Group has the power to do such a thing. I'm going to reiterate my previous comment: If you still want the trail altered then please contact then Data Working Group with your request. If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again. Regards, eerib |
|
| 124409974 | Hello Mark, I'm going to reiterate my previous comment: If you still want the trail altered then please contact then Data Working Group with your request. If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again. Regards, eerib |
|
| 124409974 | Hello Mark, I prefer to keep my work life separate from my personal endeavors. I am going to end this conversation as it's not going anywhere. If you still want the trail altered then please contact then Data Working Group with your request. If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again. Regards, eerib |
|
| 124409974 | Hello Mark, I have reached out to colleagues of mine and, although it's not exhaustive, none have any knowledge of the deactivation works you're describing. If you can, please provide verification that deactivation works have occurred, it would be extremely helpful in resolving this situation. I do not believe the trail being listed on OpenStreetMap has resulted in users attempting to "re-activate" the trail. The trail has not been listed on OpenStreetMap since Apr. 21 2022 and hasn't shown up on other platforms that use OSM data (AllTrails, GaiaGPS, CalTopo, Strava, ...) since April due to how they cache OSM data. The trail was visible on OpenStreetMap from:
I have surveyed the trail since the deletion in April, once in early May and once in late June. You can find GPS recordings in my GPS traces. I did not see any deactivation works during either visit. This would leave only July for deactivation works to have occurred and the trail wasn't on OSM during that time. Cheers, eerib |
|
| 124409974 | Hello Mark, I have surveyed this trail and others in the area quite recently and extensively. I did not see any decommission works and in fact saw new trail building works occurring in the form of blowdown removal, brushing, and trailblazing. Here are some photographs documenting the trail's condition and some of the trail building works:
I believe I have accurately described the trail with the correct OSM tags. For the few areas where route finding is required I have set the trail_visibility tag to "bad" and in other areas where the path is unambiguous and equivalent to an official trail I have set it to "excellent". I have also added the tags informal=yes and access=discouraged, which should make the trail show up less prominent than official trails in the area in most hiking apps (currently GaiaGPS but soon to include AllTrails). It's possible the trail has been decommissioned since my most recent survey but I do not believe that to be the case. I have checked private mobility data that I have access to and can see the trail is still be accessed regularly. Further, your edits are near identical to past vandalism of this trail, which makes it hard to believe without further verification that decommission works have occurred. If you can provide more information about the recent decommission works, such as letters from the District of West Vancouver/BC Parks or photographs of works then I would be ok with updating the trail's visibility, access, description, and lifecycle tags, which would be best practice in a case like this. Cheers, eerib |
|
| 124409974 | Hello bookwus65, I noticed you deleted the features in the area again over a few different changesets. Perhaps you may not have seen previous changeset discussions regarding this trail. I'm going to go into detail on why the trail should stay in case you're unfamiliar with OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap has a "Ground truth" policy, which means features are mapped as they are on the ground, even if an outside group does not want them mapped. There are a few noted exceptions to this policy, including indigenous sacred sites, specific endangered species locations, and specific areas of safety concern. This trail is heavily used by multiple groups. In addition, none of the exceptions apply. That is why the trail should stay on the map but we can add details, such as access, description, and other tags to provide context. I have already added these tags but perhaps you may have some further recommendations? Further, the OSM US Trails Working Group recommends that "Unofficial, unmaintained trails, renegade trails, and social trails" should be kept on the map for emergency service groups, junction navigation, and because the trail will just be added later by someone else but possibly with less information. The relevant links for the information I've talked about is here:
You can also read previous changeset discussions starting in this changeset.
Cheers, eerib |
|
| 118801021 | I heard about these peaks after reading a post in the "Bagger Challenge" Facebook group (linked below), did some research, and found a very old map of the area with the peaks labelled. Unfortunately, I cannot recall the map I found the peaks on at the moment. There isn't much of a recent use of the naming hence why I added the informal=yes tag, even though it doesn't have an established use for peaks, because neither of these peaks have been accepted by an administrative body (i.e. the Geographical Names Board of Canada, Province of BC, District of West Vancouver). https://www.facebook.com/groups/baggerchallenge/ I'm indecisive for keeping the peaks, removing them, or changing to natural=hill. The "South Knob" could be confused with the other knob Northwest of Eagle Lake that is also informally called the "South Knob" (see link below), which could be a safety issue. https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/94948-highlands-trail-near-horseshoe-bay.html |
|
| 122382174 | Hello Buskwus, Thank you for adding this trail. I have included a list of tags below that you may want to add to the trail to give it context and to ensure user safety. informal
trail_visibility
sac_scale
description
assisted_trail
trailblazed
Also, if you have any personal experience with the "Mt. Liddell trail" to the North of this one, could you please add tags to that one as well. I have seen several reports on various platforms of users having trouble with the trails in the area. Thank you! |
|
| 119687444 | Hello Martin, I agree that the cabins will see some misuse but other examples in the Lower Mainland region (in non-park areas and of similar accessibility) suggest that misuse will be the exception and not the norm. Cabins that do see frequent misuse are ones in areas known for reckless behavior (such as Stave West) and have greater accessibility (close to the roadway). An example of one such cabin that hasn't seen frequent misuse is the Ben von Hardenburg Memorial Cabin in Mission, BC. I should mention, I do filter what I add to OpenStreetMap, as I know of more than a dozen cabins in the Sea-to-Sky area. The cabins that I have added (Rummel, Hat Hilton, Crolly, and the 99 Trail Association's cabins) are all well known. Specifically for Rummel, a map has been posted on Reddit, has multiple trip reports written on social media platforms, is well known by several hiking/trail running/peak bagging groups, has public tracks posted on various hiking apps, and the path shows up on the Strava Heatmap. Even with all that said, I have only added the Rummel features as undefined so that they will be available to various professional organizations but not show up in public renders of OpenStreetMap. Finally, I do believe that increasing accessibility and equality to backcountry information will ultimately result in more funding for backcountry recreation and protection of natural spaces, which is a net positive even if some misuse happens along the way. However, I am open to learning about how OpenStreetMap can help prevent cases of excessive misuse. Cheers, eerib |
|
| 121675151 | Hello again Andrew, I further investigated the area as I had a suspicion that the Parcel Map BC was incorrect. I checked the BC Data Catalogue and found a file for the administrative boundaries of Indian reservations. The Penticton 1 Indian Reservation boundary does encompass the area around Mount Nkwala. As a result, I updated the boundary on OpenStreetMap. I also did some more research on the trails in the area. Several websites mention the need for a free permit from the Indian Band's office to do non-motorized recreation in the area. If this is true, it would best be reflected with the access tags:
|
|
| 121675151 | Hello Andrew, The deletions you're doing are against the OpenStreetMap policies. You can learn more at these wiki entries: osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
There are multiple reasons why roads, trails, and other features should remain on the map and those include:
Although land ownership doesn't matter whether the trails should remain on the map, I did check the ownership. I checked the area with Parcel Map BC (PMBC) maintained by the BC Land Titles and Survey Authority (LTSA) and found that only a small portion of the features you're deleting appear to be on first nations land. Further, some of the features appear in the provincial Digital Road Atlas. The best way to deal with issues arising from the trails is to correctly add contextual information via tags. You can find more information about tags in the OpenStreetMap wiki. Helpful tags for trails include:
From what I can gather, most of the features you're deleting are informal mountain biking trails. I can see that they do get use because of the Strava Heatmap, Strava Segments, and TrailForks Heatmap. I understand that the local riding association and/or trail builders may want the trails hidden on OpenStreetMap but that goes against the OpenStreetMap policies as I referenced earlier. If you're open to sharing, could you please explain what issues the area is facing? We're more than happy to help you solve any issues as best as possible. |
|
| 121452984 | I wouldn't worry about your edits, they are very good. I quite like your edits in the Indian Arm too. They'll make trip planning much easier and safer. |
|
| 121438513 | Hello robcocquyt, I've reverted your changeset as deleting roads/paths on private property is not the correct approach. I've instead marked the roads/paths with a private access tag. One of the reasons it's important that we have these roads/trails on the map is that first responders and other safety-related groups use the map to respond to emergencies. For more information on this topic, please refer to this wiki page:
Most apps and other online mapping services that use OpenStreetMap data will update over the coming weeks/months with the updates information and display the roads/paths as private. Thank you, eerib |
|
| 66865899 | Dear Kelsey John Torok, I've reverted this changeset after confirming that users are still taking the trails and that markers still exist. This trail has been deleted in the past and claimed to be decommissioned but that isn't the case. I will update the trails tagging to further discourage their use. |
|
| 120768350 | Thank you for the info. I added the trail in changeset/120770464. :) |
|
| 120006279 | Hello bmtennat, This trail and other associated features have been discussed previously in other changeset discussions and as such I've reverted the changeset. I've linked the previous discussions below. changeset/118919846
The trail was already causing incidents do in part to it's exclusion from the map. The best way to prevent further incidents or user group conflicts would be to describe the trail as accurately as possible through tags, such as sac_scale, mtb:scale, and oneway. sac_scale=*
Who did you speak to at either the District of West Vancouver or BC Parks and what was their position on the trail? I currently have the trail set to access=discouraged as per previous discussions but if one of the groups has another position then we can update the access tag. Thank you, eerib |
|
| 119687444 | Hello, I am the one that first added the cabin to the map. I added this cabin to the map because of it's extensive public history, including a public blog that provided information about the cabin for several years and discussions on public forums such as ClubTread, Bivouac, and Facebook. https://web.archive.org/web/20170523115825/https://hathilton.wordpress.com/
The deletion goes against OpenStreetMap's "Ground Truth" policy, which refers to mapping things as they are on the ground despite objections. There are a few noted exceptions to this policy but none that apply to this cabin. The OSM US Trails Working Group goes into more detail in why even some sensitive features should remain on the map in their blog. https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group I understand you may still disagree. Unfortunately, if everything that anyone considered to be a "hidden gem" or "secret spot" then the OSM project would suffer greatly and it would lead to safety issues. Please let me know if you agree with bringing the feature back to the map. Cheers, eerib |
|
| 119721614 | Hello John, I noticed you deleted the features in the area again over a few different changesets. Perhaps you may not have seen my previous comment so I'm going to leave another here and send you a message. I'm going to go into detail on why the trail should stay in case you're unfamiliar with OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap has a "Ground truth" policy, which means features are mapped as they are on the ground, even if an outside group does not want them mapped. There are a few noted exceptions to this policy, including indigenous sacred sites, specific endangered species locations, and specific areas of safety concern. This trail is heavily used by multiple groups, including mountain bikers, hikers, trail runners, Geocachers, and peak baggers to name a few. In addition, none of the exceptions apply. That is why the trail should stay on the map. Further, the OSM US Trails Working Group recommends that "Unofficial, unmaintained trails, renegade trails, and social trails" should be kept on the map for emergency service groups, junction navigation, and because the trail will just be added later by someone else but possibly with less information. The relevant links for the information I've talked about is here:
Let me know if you agree with my interpretation of the OSM policies and what steps you would like to take going forward. Cheers, eerib |