Hi, I don't think these changes should apply. The body of water is mapped, and for these large harbours there isn't a clear centerline like there might be for a river.

> By publishing these trails OSM is legitimizing them and encouraging their use.

That's absolutely not the case, if things are entered into OSM correctly, then we publish data that says someone illegally created a trail here and it's use is not authorised. We are aiming to accurately document what actually exists, we are not aiming to falsly claim that these are authorised for use.

Deleting these ways causes a lot of havok as users re-add the ways again and then we loose the history, it's much better to leave the way in OSM and tag it more accurately.

This is all documented on the wiki links I provided, but I'm happy to help. I invite you to join the #oceania channel on https://discord.com/invite/openstreetmap where we can discuss further and provide assistance.

Thanks for using the abandoned tagging prefix along with access=no. I can see there has been a lot of edit warring going on here, with trails being added, deleted, re-added, re-deleted. By having the way exist in OSM and tagged in this way hopefully we can prevent the edit warring, and clearly document the current status of what actually exists, while preventing most maps misrepresenting the trail as open/available for use.

hi the name should be the proper name only osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only and I wouldn't usually expect "Walking Track" to be used as a name if it's just describing it as a walking track. In this case foot=designated can be used to mark a track as designated for walking.

Hi Chris,

That's cool, I think we all agree that NPA don't approve tracks being created without approval.

That said if they have been created without approval and exist in some form, then we have ways to map those as such. We have a section documenting community guidelines at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths

So if the track physically exists but the park authority prohibits access and intends to rehabilitate it, then tagging it as abandoned:highway=type or disused:highway=type along with access=no helps tell OSM data consumers more accurately what's happening here. This is more appropriate than just deleting the way, at least where these is still something existing on the ground.

osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
ref=*

Did you follow the import guidelines osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines by discussing with the community first and documenting your import plan? That should happen before doing an import, so these kinds of issues can be discussed before hand where it's easier to change.

I haven't gone through everything but things like way/403559117 should usually be ref=15 not name=15.

Agreed it should only be on objects where they may be referenced by that number, eg. picnic sites, BBQs etc.

Hi Chris,

I'm not doubting or disagreeing with you that these are illegally constructed and closed to the public. I would just like to see OpenStreetMap data accurately reflect the ground truth and I advocate mapping these in OSM as closed or disassembled tracks in a way that allows downstream applications to omit it from their maps.

It's certainly not because we want to have these tracks showing as open for use, I can't see anyone in the community advocating for that.

I suggest Parks Victoria join in the community channels such as the mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or the community forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73 to contribute to how this situation is handled. We have some guidelines at osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access but there's always scope to improve them.

Sorry but just claiming this or that can't be done doesn't help with justification or other mappers understanding your motives. At this point there is a clear community consensus against your viewpoint, so the original state is being restored, please respect this.

Can you please explain why they can't be split and why you can't tag change:lanes? They must be split for different change:lanes to be applied. Could you also respond about if you disagree that on the ground matches Bing or it's your interpretation of how dt should be mapped based on the Bing imagery.

A number of people on discord did raise issue with your revert, so it seems against the community consensus. Unless you can further justify, we'll restore back to the original and ask you don't further revert again otherwise we'll need to request your account be blocked

Hi could you please explain what you mean by "can't be split"?. Ways need to be split to apply two different tag values, so it's common to have roads split when there are any physical changes in the road which are tagged.

Hi could you please explain what you mean by "can't be split"?. Ways need to be split to apply two different tag values, so it's common to have roads split when there are any physical changes in the road which are tagged.

I don't understand, why can't they be split as @Ds5rUy did? Are you saying the Bing imagery here is wrong or you just don't agree with the mapping done by @Ds5rUy based on the imagery?

This changeset was reverted in changeset/142748502

This changeset has been reverted in changeset/142786734 the original changes by Ds5rUy appear perfectly valid.

Not sure what you mean. This changeset reverted changeset/142702991 which wasn't yours. I'll go ahead and revert this one as I can't see any justification.

Hi, could you please try to document your justification and reasoning behind a revert changeset in your changeset comments, it would really help the rest of the mapping community to understand your changesets.

In the first instance it's usually best to raise a changeset comment before jumping to a revert.

For this reversion I can't see it being justified, it removes the changes and transition tags which appeared correct.

Have you seen osm.wiki/Proposal:Traffic_signals_set_2 ? You might be interested. Ideally the signal nodes and the relation would have use ref=* set to the 4 digit code.

The name key is for the name only, description=* is a better option for descriptions to show to end map users. I've made the updates accordingly.

For slightly overgrown you might want to consider applying a trail_visibility value.

I've changed this to description per osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I'm keen to understand in more detail the rational behind this, and any references you can point to. I think from there it's worth raising a discussion about more suitable tags you could use.