OpenStreetMap
eerib's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 131984825 | Hello Coast59, You're correct that the social media posts do not geo-tag the location but the dozens of public recorded activities and maps on Strava, AllTrails, Gaia, TrailForks, etc. do geo-tag the location and provide directions. Additionally, there has been social media posts in the past that did provide direction information, but they were taken down either by the creator or by report spamming. The saunas are already seeing excessive growth due to natural word of mouth sharing and the recorded activities and maps. This is shown by the comments on various social media posts referring to a period prior to the saunas being mapped on OSM: --- "The city-its have already blown it out." "The spots are already doomed." "Even in the last six months it seems like it’s exploded. Anyone I’ve run into there says they’re from Vancouver. I can’t remember the last time I met someone who was in the sauna and lived in town." --- The way the trails leading to the saunas and the saunas themselves are currently mapped (i.e. removal of tourism=wilderness_hut tag from the saunas back in early December) should provide a barrier to discoverability. If we take a look at the way various data consumers present the data we can see that only FatMaps is still using the tourism=wilderness_hut tag to highlight the location of the buildings. Once FatMap updates their OSM data it should remove this highlighting of the location. Further, more responsible apps such as AllTrails and Gaia GPS are showing the trails with less emphasis. I do realize there has been SAR cases in the area in the past and that SAR volunteers may not want the features mapped for fear of further cases. However, if we removed all features that a stakeholder, like SAR volunteers, wanted removed it would degrade the database and lead to impacted user safety. Do we start removing all unsanctioned double black diamond mountain bike trails? Do we start removing all informal scrambling/climbing routes? Do we start removing all unsanctioned backcountry cabins near avalanche terrain? It's a slippery slope and hence why the Ground Truth policy exists. I should also point out that SAR is not the only emergency stakeholder in this situation. There is also BC Ambulance Service, BC Wildfire Service, Fire Rescue, and other groups. There are still plenty of features for users to stumble upon and enjoy. There are well over 100 unsanctioned backcountry cabins in the South Coast region that I have purposely left off OSM, including several within a 10km radius of the saunas. Those cabins are not frequently visited and are not widely referenced online - the key difference. Those cabins will also be visited primarily by new users stumbling upon them unlike the saunas. Cheers eerib |
|
| 131984825 | Hello Coast59, I understand that the saunas were to be kept secret. My philosophy surrounding secret features is to only add those that are frequently visited and/or widely known and referenced (i.e. they’re no longer secret). If it’s a borderline case, I will add the feature but leave out specific tags that ensure the feature does not shown up on carto and on data consumers (websites/apps) but is still viewable by emergency and rescue services (more than just SAR groups). I do not believe the saunas are secret anymore, nor a borderline case, and that is why I added them to OpenStreetMap. I have compiled a few examples to illustrate my case. 1. The Strava Heatmap shows plenty of publicly shared activities - https://i.imgur.com/00N2wgn.jpg 2. The AllTrails Community Content shows plenty of publicly shared recorded activities and maps - https://imgur.com/a/zb5AELF 3. There is plenty of public social media posts about the saunas - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncQVUlimSNc
I do realize that even if a feature is no longer secret a stakeholder, such as the builder, may still not want the feature shared digitally. This is troublesome because many stakeholders may not want a feature shared digitally. Examples include neighborhood associations, forestry and mining companies, parks organizations, trail builders, etc. Removing features because a stakeholder did not want it shared digitally would degrade the database and impact user safety. This is why OpenStreetMap has a Ground Truth policy and tags that allow one to describe a feature in detail. With all this said, I welcome feedback regarding my philosophy and what measures should be used to determine if a feature is no longer secret. Cheers, eerib |
|
| 131985008 | This Changeset was reverted along with others by Changeset #131990303. A discussion comment can be found in Changeset #131984825 |
|
| 131984944 | This Changeset was reverted along with others by Changeset #131990303. A discussion comment can be found in Changeset #131984825 |
|
| 131984825 | Hello Coast59, Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for doing your first contributions. Unfortunately, this contribution and your others appears to go against OpenStreetMap policies and therefore I have reverted the deletions (Changesets 131985008, 131984944, 131984825). Please refer to the Ground Truth policy. Other than the OpenStreetMap policies there are a few other reasons why backcountry features should be on OpenStreetMap. A few of these reasons include: 1. The location of these backcountry features is critical for user safety. The Cloudburst cabin is in an area regularly used by ski touring and peak bagging groups. Also, note that the Cloudburst cabin is available on other maps such as BackRoadMapBooks and Bivouac. 2. Professional organizations rely on OpenStreetMap data, including the BC WIldfire Service, BC Ambulance Service, BC RCMP, and Search & Rescue groups. There has already been at least two search and rescue cases related to the two sauna cabins. 3. Deleting the backcountry features from the map only invites it to be re-added soon after by someone who perceives it to be missing. If you disagree with my revert of your deletions then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group (DWG). If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion. Please note that the DWG has already been contacted regarding the sauna cabin features in the past. Thank you again for joining OpenStreetMap. - eerib |
|
| 128363055 | Hello BC Trail Guides, Sorry for the delayed response and thank you for letting me know. I understand deleting the building area is against OSM policy but I also realize the very real world vandalism and associated concerns. I think there is a way to deal with this but also keep the data in the OSM database so that emergency services and other governmental organizations have access to the data. I would recommend using the following tags: and note=Hidden because of ongoing issues with vandalism, material theft, and illegal campfires By using the "hidden" prefix the building will not show up in the OSM carto render and almost every navigation app (AllTrails, GaiaGPS, Strava, etc.) but will remain available for emergency services (BC Wildfire Service, BC Ambulance Service, etc.) and governmental organizations. This will also allow future OSM mappers to know the issue with this specific building rather than them just adding it again. You may also want to add the access and description tags to provide even more clarity to those emergency services. Cheers, eerib |
|
| 130581919 | I agree that access=yes may not be the best choice of the available access tags. I am ok with the removal of the access tag entirely. |
|
| 129757190 | Hello balski, I encourage you to reach out to the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group so that a neutral party can resolve this issue. I am apologize if I have acted in any way in bad faith - sorry. Thank you - eerib |
|
| 129757190 | Hello balski, The display of this house is no different than other houses on Bowen Island. I do share the concern with regards to trespass but do not believe that it's display on OpenStreetMap will result in an increase of trespassing. I have already gone above and beyond by adding several tags to describe it as a private building at the request of user apsimpson. If you're affiliated with the homeowner then I suggest following established standards by purchasing inexpensive "Private Property" or "No Trespassing" signs at the Dollarama dollar store and putting them up along your property boundary. If you disagree then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion. If you would like to discuss legal issues then you should reach out to the OSMF Board. Thank you - eerib --- For any DWG or OSMF member that might end up reading this changeset discussion, I have suspicions that the controversy regarding this property is related to the legal troubles it has. The structures may have been illegally built and the users may believe that the building showing up on OpenStreetMap will exacerbate their own legal troubles. I have included two links that describe the past and current legal troubles that the property has. https://decisions.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/Decisions/Dfull/dec_2022-08-00024_20222165.asp |
|
| 129757190 | Hello balski, OpenStreetMap policy is that mapping of private buildings is acceptable. Please refer to the page below. osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information Hello apsimpson, I do share the concern with regards to trespassing. I will add the tags: - access=private
Hopefully this will prevent any trespassing as a result of the building outline appearing on OpenStreetMap. Thank you both |
|
| 129761834 | Hello balski, Please refer to my comment on your initial changeset/deletion of this private building. Thank you - eerib |
|
| 129757190 | Hello balski, Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for doing your first contributions. Unfortunately, this contribution appears to go against OpenStreetMap policies and therefore I have reverted the deletions. Please refer to the 'Ground Truth' policy, which I have linked below.
Further, refer to the 'Why we won't delete roads on private property' wiki page.
If you disagree with my revert of your deletions then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion. Thank you again for joining OpenStreetMap. - eerib |
|
| 129756480 | Hello balski, Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for doing your first contributions. Unfortunately, this contribution appears to go against OpenStreetMap policies and therefore I have reverted the deletions. Please refer to the 'Ground Truth' policy, which I have linked below.
Other than the OpenStreetMap policies there are a few other reasons why backcountry features should be on OpenStreetMap. A few of these reasons include: 1. The location of these backcountry cabins is critical for user safety. 2. Professional organizations rely on OpenStreetMap data, including the BC WIldfire Service, BC Ambulance Service, BC RCMP, and Search & Rescue groups. 3. Deleting the backcountry features from the map only invites it to be re-added soon after by someone who perceives it to be missing. If you disagree with my revert of your deletions then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion. Thank you again for joining OpenStreetMap. - eerib |
|
| 128317210 | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I have a few pointers about this edit that may help in the future. The technically correct way to mark a closure of access is to add the access tag with a value such as "private" or "no". You could add this to the recreation site polygon and any FSR or foot path segments. This would be the technically correct way to mark a closure rather than modifying the rec site name. Further, if a FSR has been deactivated with cross ditches, you could modify the lifecycle prefix (i.e. highway=track to abandoned:highway=track). I also encourage MoF to join the OSM US Trails Working Group. The group includes parks organizations and app developers looking to solve challenges that the organizations are having. https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group Cheers |
|
| 125713682 | Hello Mike, It seems that you're a new user and may not be aware of OpenStreetMap policies on private property features such as roads and trails. Deleting these features at the request of a property owner is not the right course of action but rather adding the access tag with the value 'private' or 'no' is. It appears that you did add the access tag with the value no, which is correct. However, you deleted a portion of the road which is not correct. Deleting this road could impair emergency services like the local fire department and/or BC Wildfire service, among other potential issues. osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property Thank you! |
|
| 122683156 | I should have mentioned that I do encourage improving the OpenStreetMap representation of the path and cabin by updating their positioning and tagging, a few examples below. The path could use more accurate pathing and the tags trailblazed, trailblazed:visibility, and assisted_trail. The cabin could use more accurate placement and the tags capacity, ele, shower, mattress, drinking_water, and toilets. The general area needs cliffs, gullies, scree to be added. Also the creeks could be marked if they're intermittent. |
|
| 122683156 | Hello valhalla121, I received a private message from the Hat Hilton custodian (user: Custodian Hat Hilton) on June 21, 2022 and have received a follow-up on August 15, 2022. I will include below much of my initial response to the custodian. I share the concerns with losing the cabin, misuse of the cabin, and potential safety issues that could arise from having the features on the map. However, I don’t agree with removing the cabin or path from the map and I’ll go into detail why and include several links at the end. OpenStreetMap has a “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. If OpenStreetMap removed trails and other features from the map just because someone considered it “private”, “secret”, or a “hidden gem” then the OSM project would suffer greatly. If we delete this cabin, should we also then let the mountain bikers delete any of the hundreds of unauthorized trails they want to keep secret on the North Shore? Should we let any snowmobile group delete their unauthorized cabins? Should we let any NIMBY resident delete anything close to their property? Should we let BC Parks delete any trail they don’t consider to be official? Should we let MFLNORD delete any deactivated or non-status forestry road? Should we let any elitist hiking enthusiast delete any trail they deem overcrowded by the hordes of Insta-hikers? How would it affect the public's safety if we suddenly start removing trails and points of interest? The answer is tricky but the best practice is to map what’s on the ground but add as many tags as possible to provide context to reduce conflicts/issues. With all that said, I do believe some self-selection should occur. I added this cabin and path to the map, and not others, because of its extensive public history, including a publicly posted map at junctions in the area, a public blog that provided information about the cabin for several years, trip reports and discussions on public forums such as ClubTread, Bivouac, Facebook, and Reddit and public tracks available in multiple hiking and sport-focused apps. Further, because the amount of information, of lack thereof, has resulted in a SAR rescue. I realize you may not agree with my opinion above and still want the features removed. The correct procedure would be to reach out to a mediator (see Disputes page linked below) or the Data Working Group (data@openstreetmap.org) with your request and to reference our discussion in this changeset. I have included several links below to various topics I have referred to above: osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property http://ropewiki.com/File:M_Creek_sketch.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170523115825/https://hathilton.wordpress.com/ https://bivouac.com/FtrPg.asp?FtrId=4582 https://bivouac.com/TripPg.asp?TripId=8088 https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/40761-hat-hilton.html https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/40548-hat-mtn-cabin-tunnel-bluffs-none-above.html https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/45143-hat-hilton-tunnel-bluffs-2013-06-15-a.html https://writesofpassage.me/2016/07/24/hiking-to-tunnel-bluffs-a-hidden-gem-overlooking-howe-sound/ |
|
| 124409974 | An update for anyone reading, I received a reply from BC Parks today, specifically the "BC Parks Information Team". The message says "Thank you for your email. I can confirm that no trail decommissioning has occurred in Cypress Park recently." I am ok with forwarding my correspondence with District of West Vancouver and/or BC Parks to anyone that is interested. Thank you to Elliot and the DWG team for quickly resolving the vandalism of trail features in this area. |
|
| 124536668 | Dispute discussion can be found in changeset #124409974 |
|
| 124409974 | An update for anyone reading, 1. I filed a DWG report on Friday with details about my surveys of the area and details of the past vandalism in this immediate area. I received a response back that the issue has been sent to a USA-based DWG member. 2. On Friday I emailed (from my OSM-specific email) West Vancouver Parks, BC Parks, and the Friends of Cypress Provincial Park asking if any official or unofficial trail decommissioning work has been done in the area this year. I received a response today from the District of West Vancouver Parks Coordinator saying: "West Vancouver Parks has not undertaken any trail decommissions in this area. The upper portion of this area is BC Parks jurisdiction, so it may be worth checking with them as well." |
