Why did you add highway=path to osm.org/way/728917427?

I put a note= tag explaining that this trail no longer exists. I left the way itself precisely so that someone using outdated GPX traces or outdated imagery would not add it back in. Are you local? Have you done a recent survey? Or are you are just tagging to make OSM-Inspector happy?

@bkari04, I agree with @phidauex, the recreation ground tag should not have been removed without consulting the community. In any event, these *are* "recreation grounds" as the public is allowed to run, hike, bike, horseback ride, etc. on many of these properties, all of which are "recreation"

Hi rbradt,
I think you have a valid concern regarding resource damage. I want to protect our public lands and natural areas as well. Before any of us starts/resumes deleting/undeleting/obfuscating data that others have entered into OpenStreetMap, why not raise your general concern (data in OSM leads to damage to natural resources, even if the data accurately reflects what is on the ground) with the larger OSM community? I am sure you are not the first person to have this concern, and there are probably many in the community who will have ideas as to how to address the situation. I suggest this mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
(although there are many other channels through which to engage the community).

My view is that although there will be some downside to widely reporting accurate facts, the benefits of having open and transparent data outweigh these downsides in most cases. Otherwise we could say that the media should never report horrific crimes, as they can lead to "copy cat" crimes. By the same token, data about the state of the economy shouldn't be published as bad economic news leads to worse economic conditions as people and companies stop spending money out of fear. One exception in OSM is culturally sensitive sites. I think the consensus in OSM is not to map such sites in most cases.

Deleting accurate data because it is dangerous/injurious also seems a little like censorship - "Please only publish nice, safe, facts"

Ironically, having talked to some of the users of these informal trails (not the trails you deleted in particular), I can say that these users are probably the most opposed to the publication of such data. Presumably as they know it could lead to the trails being shut down, or perhaps because they just don't want others people to show up? If you are a land manager, why not use the data in OSM to target illegal trails for enforcement and restoration? Its kind of like the DEA getting information about where drug deals are going to go down.

I wasn't suggesting that every bit of Strava Heatmap should be mapped in OSM as a trail, it just provides evidence that the original mapper of those trails didn't totally fabricate their existence. Not conclusive proof, but some evidence.

Bing as a default source: I haven't used the iD editor in sometime, but I would think there would be a way to override it. Perhaps it is automatically taking the sources from the imagery you have displayed? In any event, if you have "surveyed" (OSM term for actual on the ground inspection of something) a trail or other feature, put that in your change set comment/source and possibly also in a note tag on the feature itself. Not a lot of mappers do this, but provides credence to your work and lets other mappers know that you are not just tracing from imagery or copying from another source.
Mike

Hi rbradt,
It is great that you have access to a professional grade GPS, and made the effort to apply a differential correction. If you cite this in your change set comments and source, other mappers will be less likely to reposition the feature in question using a less accurate source. I have had this happen to me, which is why I put the comment in both the change set, as well as the note tag on the feature itself. You can also use the source:geometry tag. Not all mappers will understand what "differential correction" is, so you might want to put it in layman's terms. If you just say that your source is "GPX" other mappers will probably assume you are just using a consumer grade GPS/smart phone/fitness watch.

After receiving your comment, I did review the features in question and compared the version prior to, and after my change, and there was very little difference.
Mike

Hi rbradt, Could you restore the "unofficial" trails that you have deleted, both in this change set as well as others? Or provide evidence that they really don't exist (not just that they are "unofficial")? In this change set you cite "Bing" as a source, but trails do not always show up in overhead imagery such as Bing. In any event, at least one of the trails you deleted, e.g. osm.org/way/621543001, do show up on Bing, albeit rather faintly. In addition, the Strava Global Heatmap shows that people are travelling along the route of that trail. Finally, unless you have been to a specific location and looked for the trail in question, you should assume that the original mapper is correct, although you can always contract them and ask about their sources.

Trail data, whether the trails are official or not, are used by those who travel in the back country. Even if they are not travelling on those trails, they serve as a navigational reference. These data are also used by search and rescue and other emergency response organizations.

If you have evidence that a trail is "unofficial", you can tag it as "informal=yes." If you have evidence that the public is prohibited from using a trail, you can tag it as "access=no"

Thanks,
Mike

Hi Rob,
If foot travel (hiking, walking, running) is truly allowed and if there is no foot=yes tag, data users will have no way of knowing this fact. If there is no foot=* tag the assumption by most data users will be that the legality of foot travel is unknown.
Mike

Rob,
Thanks for the quick reply. If I had to guess, hiker=yes should probably be translated as foot=yes.
Mike

Hi Rob,
What does the tag "hiker=yes" mean? Is it different than "foot=yes"? There seems to be very few uses of it (~86). You and about five others have used it. Since you are an experienced mapper, and local, I thought I would ask you. Perhaps we should document it on the wiki?
Mike

How did you determine that these roads do not actually connect at osm.org/node/5292729917? GPX traces show someone travelled between the two roads, but of course they could have been walking and not driving.

If you are just mapping something straight forward, such as buildings using a single source of imagery, I think you can just cite that one source (and only cite that one source - I see some mappers cite every source they have probably ever used). If it is something a bit more complicated, I like to explain in my change set comment, a comment in a note=* tag, and perhaps a source tag. For example, I often align trails to the Strava Global Heatmap, and if I don't fully document what I am doing, I risk having someone come along and realign the trail to old imagery (that is also less accurate).

Thanks for the response and the explanation (and all of your edits!). I haven't been up there in a couple of years and I didn't recall seeing that (I generally try to do less popular hikes in the park). Based upon what you told me I added the "source:name=sign at location" to the node in question. I try to do this with names that I add, as well as ensure that the source listed in the change set mentions where the name came from so other mappers will know where the name came from.

What is the source for the name "Mushroom Rocks." You cite "Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta;.gpx data file;Mapbox Satellite" but none of these sources provide names.

I noticed you have been deleting "unofficial trails." In OSM we map what is actually on the ground, whether it is "official" or not.

I wonder if we should put a "note" or other appropriate tag on trails we have aligned to Strava. It looks like another mapper has aligned the Stone Temple Circuit back to old Bing imagery (Bing imagery in the area is no newer than 20016, and may be older).

Hi,

Thanks for the edits to OpenStreetMap.

Did the state park reroute the Stone Temple Circuit within the last month or so? Mapper "CragMapper" aligned that trail to the Strava Heatmap (which is about as accurate as one can get without a pro grade differential GPS) just back in May. If you are relying on Bing, it is at least as old as 2016, and might be as old as 2012, in that area, and the state park has indeed rerouted trails since then.
Mike

Rob, I appreciate your willingness to consider other viewpoints. I do think the information in your source file is valuable, it is just that lhv=* may not be the right tag. Perhaps truck=yes, or maxweightrating=<what ever is legal in Colorado>, or maxweightrating:hgv=* may be more appropriate to model the meaning of the original source data.
Mike

From a legal standpoint, I think fire trucks have some exemption (you would know better than I). Sounds like what you are looking for is a tag that indicates that it would be physically possible to drive a large, heavy truck on a given road.

The hgv tag seems to also be about legal access rather than physical suitability.

I don't have any suggested tag or tags for what you are attempting show, but I can search the wiki, and we could perhaps ask on the tagging mail list.

But it can't be legally open to a vehicle weighing 97,000 pounds (which is part of the meaning of the lhv tag as described on the wiki), because that is illegal in the State of Colorado unless there are special circumstances (like a permit).

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/csp/size-and-weight-information seems to suggest that in the state of Colorado, the maximum gross vehicle weight limit on non-interstate roads is 85,000 pounds, which is less than what the lhv tag specifies.

The wiki seems to be pretty clear that the lhv key is about legal access ("Legal access permission for Longer Heavier Vehicle (LHV's) which can have up to 6 axles and carry up to 44 metric tons. ") rather than the physical configuration of the road.