Hello,
The features you deleted were previously discussed in a recent changeset. I've linked that changeset below so you can read through the discussion.

changeset/118919846#map=16/49.3794/-123.2515

I've reverted your changeset as a result. If you disagree with this action, I encourage you to contact the Data Working Group to resolve the dispute.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

I went ahead and changed the access from private to permissive in changeset/119687158 after verifying today that the land owner's signs are still up. I used the PMBC Parcel Cadastre to decide what trails are within the BPPL lands and which have an agreement for official public use (Baden Powell, Whyte Lake trails).

I understand the concerns but I'm going to side with the established OpenStreetMap policies on this. I'm going to revert the changeset and add some tags to hopefully ameliorate any issues. Please do not delete the trail. If you disagree, I encourage you to contact the Data Working Group to resolve the dispute.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

An NSR member (user: TaxusB) reached out to me recently via private message about my edits in the area and in the arbutus forest lower down the mountain in the British Pacific Properties Limited lands. The member had some misunderstandings that I've hopefully clarified. The member also deleted some trails in the BPPL lands, which resulted in the Data Working Group reverting the changeset (linked below).

changeset/118968582#map=17/49.36354/-123.27004

Hello,

Have you been able to talk to the trail builder about the trail?

Cheers, eerib

The land is privately owned but I believe the access is permissive. I've included a photo of one of the numerous signs in the area that were put up by the land owner several years ago. This area has seen moderate hiking use for over two decades. Let me know if you all agree.

https://imgur.com/a/VSVvEAS

I asked around and did some research and I was pointed to the newly formed US Trails Working Group. According to their blog post and suggested tagging, they would recommend keeping the trail but adding the tag informal=yes and access=discouraged (if the trail is interpreted to be a "A social trail, and access to this social trail is not prohibited outright, but is officially discouraged by the land owner/manager.").

Could you please reach out to the trail builder and confirm if he agrees with this interpretation?

---

The section from their blog post I'm referring is:

"The Working Group does not propose to remove trails from OSM if their use is discouraged or illegal. This would be contrary to OSM’s “Map what’s on the ground” rule, and doesn’t make sense for several reasons:

- Good coverage of all trails (including closed or illegal ones) is essential for some mapping applications, such as firefighting and SAR.
- Trail junctions serve as useful landmarks for people traveling in the outdoors. It’s often best for maps to show those junctions, even if only one of the trails is official. People are more likely to make a wrong turn if a junction isn’t shown on their map.
- Deleting a trail from the map only invites it to be re-added soon after by someone who perceives it to be missing."

https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group
osm.wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Trails_Working_Group
osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

---

The section from the BC Parks website for Cypress Provincial Park where I interpret them to discourage social trail use is:

"For your own safety and the preservation of the park, obey posted signs and keep to designated trails. Shortcutting trails destroys plant life and soil structure."

https://bcparks.ca/explore/parkpgs/cypress/

Cheers, eerib

Hello,

I am the one that added this trail and did some adjustments to trails in the area. I was wondering what the specific sensitive ecosystem is?

From my understanding back when I added this trail, the trail is a single track mountain bike trail that does see quite a lot of use. I also found that is was used by hikers/trail runners and by Geocachers.

My general reasoning for adding the trail was to prevent users from getting lost in the area, which was common in the general area due to the outdated trail mapping but also due to the unmapped trails.

I checked the wiki and the only entry I can find related to when not to map specifies location specific endangered species habitats, indigenous sacred sites, and safety concerns but it isn't an exhaustive list. Because the area is seeing quite a lot of use from various groups, doesn't go against the limited wiki entry, and has resulted in users getting lost, I am in favor of bringing the trail back. Perhaps we could add tags including a description, note, and informality to add context for the trail.

Cheers, eerib

osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information#Other_Reasons_not_to_Map