Good catch! I've switched it back and set the new name as the alt_name.

Hello all,

I have essentially reverted the unintentional vandalism edits in this area with additions of better data.

Please note that removal of private roads and paths is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. OSM is used by emergency services including the BC RCMP, BC Ambulance, BC Wildfire Service, Search & Rescue, and others and having the data is important for their work.

Cheers, eerib

Hello surfingMoose,

Just a heads up, this changeset introduced an error in the Cabin Trail where the entire trail is marked as a bridge rather than just the section over Mystery Creek.

Generally, it's a good idea to merge trails into one long stretch but sometimes it's not best practice. This can include when there are differing features along the way, such as bridges or dramatic differences in trail surface/difficulty/trailbed visibility.

Cheers, eerib

Hello Scott,

I concur with your assessment and have made the change.

Sorry for the delayed reply, the email notifier sent to me got categorized incorrectly by my filter system.

Cheers, eerib

Thank you for the reply.

I think it would be best to contact the Data Working Group for more information as I previously mentioned.

Hello Hamden,

My understanding is that a personal residential apartment that is not open to the general public does not constitute a business location for addition to OpenStreetMap. Just because you ask clients to come to your personal apartment to pay for junk removal, a seemingly far fetched contrived example, does not mean you actually have a business location in the apartment.

If you disagree with my understanding then please take up the issue with the Data Working Group.

[email protected] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

Thank you, eerib

The path exists and therefore will remain on OSM as per the ground truth policy. I have added the tags informal=yes and trail_visibility=horrible to reduce the path's emphasis in apps used by the general public such as AllTrails and Gaia GPS.

If you're worried about the cabin, I recommend reaching out to Metro Vancouver's Water Department ([email protected]) to have it removed and have warning signage added near the embankment.

I understand you do not want unauthorized or "secret" trails to be shown on OpenStreetMap, however it is not OpenStreetMap's policy to remove unauthorized or "secret" trails. This policy is for several reasons but foremost is because it presents a number of serious safety issues. OpenStreetMap is not just used by recreational users but also emergency responders (Fire & Rescue, BC Ambulance, BC Wildfire Service, Search & Rescue, and others).

The correct approach to dealing with unauthorized trails is to use the informal tag with the value yes. This will result in apps such as AllTrails and Gaia displaying the trail with less emphasis compared to trails without the informal tag or with a value of no.

This changeset has been reverted fully by changeset #137346415. The current tags already deal with the path being unauthorized and leading to a structure and cliff.

This changeset has been reverted fully by changeset #137305412. Deleting a feature that exists violates the ground truth policy. Please refer to the following related wiki pages for more information.

osm.wiki/Ground_truth

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

The correct approach for dealing with an unsanctioned trail is to use the informal tag, which this trail already has Please refer to the following wiki pages.

osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

informal=*

This changeset has been reverted fully by changeset #137304990. Deleting a feature that exists violates the ground truth policy. Please refer to the following related wiki pages for more information.

osm.wiki/Ground_truth

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

The correct approach for dealing with an unsanctioned trail is to use the informal tag. Please refer to the following wiki pages.

osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

informal=*

This changeset has been reverted fully by changeset #137304872. Deleting a feature that exists violates the ground truth policy. Please refer to the following related wiki pages for more information.

osm.wiki/Ground_truth

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

Thank you for catching that! Just fixed it.

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.

https://imgur.com/a/hsRxqqm

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

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
- https://www.tiktok.com/@thingz.about.me/video/6971564764325481733
- https://www.tiktok.com/@jdoms.pizza/video/7181564702605069574
- https://www.tiktok.com/@jdoms.pizza/video/7106949105812868358
- https://www.tiktok.com/@jdoms.pizza/video/7106952092295728390
- https://www.tiktok.com/@fraaaaaaaancis/video/6991963400825801989
- https://www.instagram.com/p/ClwWSByvmXC/
- https://www.instagram.com/p/CeooaP8vklr/
- https://www.instagram.com/p/CMN36Nxp5CX/
- https://www.instagram.com/p/CjUECX5rhAJ/
- https://www.instagram.com/p/Cl3_sxbpYDo/
- https://www.facebook.com/groups/1117796184947213/posts/5706569569403162/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/Squamish/comments/zlezom/saunas_in_the_mamquam/

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

This Changeset was reverted along with others by Changeset #131990303.

A discussion comment can be found in Changeset #131984825

changeset/131984825

This Changeset was reverted along with others by Changeset #131990303.

A discussion comment can be found in Changeset #131984825

changeset/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.

osm.wiki/Ground_truth

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.

osm.wiki/Disputes

Thank you again for joining OpenStreetMap. - eerib

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:

hidden:building=cabin

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

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.