Visited the site today and the builder (Pickle Rick) put his name on one side of the sign and the name of the trail (Jerk de Soleil) on the other. Recommend we keep labeled as JdS.

I will confirm asap. I have not seen that PR sign but there is a Jerk sign about 200 feet into the trail. I will confirm.

Thanks for the information.

There are some good things in there and some surprising things, but it’s your platform to decide.

In terms of the legal implications, I’m not only talking about from those who use OSM. Im talking about what happens when users sue corporations for what’s happened to them as a result of OSM guiding them to lands they’re not allowed to be on and they get hurt, and then the corporations then sue OSM. BPP the land owner of the land we are talking about is a multibillion organization who’s been proactive about decommissioning these trails in the past. Not only does mapping them result in the demise of these trails - which is probably why eerib seems to have so many complaints (based upon eeribs own commentary), but highlighting the trails just results in more people being at risk. They’re not safe for most people. Which is why the DANGER No Trespassing signs are up in the area.

Anyways, I’ll ask BPP if they want the trails removed from OSM and you’ll either hear from their Counsel or you won’t. But when/if BPP is sued for many millions - and it could happen - if OSM was involved then you’ll be dragged into it too. That’s why Trailforks has proactively decided not to show these trails on its maps.

Im just a guy trying to keep people safe in the woods. I’m out of this discussion but I do appreciate the constructive dialogue even though I oppose some of your principals.

Me last try. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD EERIB PLEASE STOP.

Well much of that seems insane to me.

So I’m clear, if the owner of lands requests that their lands not be mapped on OSM, that’s irrelevant?

I can send pics of the DANGER, DO NOT ENTER, NO TRESPASSING signs. Does it not matter that trails on the other side of those are being mapped?

Seems like a legal time bomb to me

I will speak only about the private land for now but most of the concerns and damages extend to the other lands as well.

Eerib is not correct about the signage. There are a few Exclusion of Liability signs yes but eerib is failing to mention, on purpose or by being careless, that the signage actually says:

DO NOT ENTER.
DANGER
NO TRESPASSING

That is the signage for the lands on which eerib maps, seemingly despite the number of well intentioned people expressing concern and asking eerib to stop. Politely so far.

I’ll ask again, do you want a cease and desist from the ACTUAL OWNER OF THE LAND?

Hint: Outdoor the company that owns Trailforks has chosen not to show the dangerous trails we are talking about for all the legal reasons I’ve expressed to you. They’re unsafe for most users and they’re on private property behind no trespassing signs.

For one, I am NOT one of those who you mention. If there has been complaints in the past, I’ve had nothing to do with those and those people have nothing to do with this.
It’s really quite simple.
Eerib has been damaging to the lands of the Northshore. Its population and those who rely upon OSM.
Eerib has been directing users to PRIVATE PROPERTY
Eerib has been mischaracterizing trails resulting in damage to many.
Simply guiding people to these trails ON PRIVATE PROPERTY is damaging enough to landowners
But users are now getting hurt.

What do you need to stop this damaging behaviour? I’m asking. Seriously.

Will do but I want to make sure you have the background.

Eerib is uploading dangerous trails with insufficient descriptions that are ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. These are not public lands. Eerib is encouraging people with insufficient skills to trespass on dangerous trails on private property. The no trespassing signs are everywhere.

Rescue recently pulled a biker off one of the trails eerib uploaded. That biker should never have been on that trail but was guided there by eeribs upload and OSMs highlight.

Land managers/owners go to extensive legal lengths to properly characterize trails. Eerib is not trained in this and OSM is adopting legal liabilities by mischaracterizing trails on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Mapping private property should be outside of OSM policy by itself, no?

Making it more egregious, when warned of eeribs dangerous behaviour, my deletions were reversed without proper consideration of the risks I’ve outlined. This shifts burden of liability to OSM.

What do you need to remove all the trails eerib has uploaded on PRIVATE PROPERTY?

I can get you a cease and desist from the land owner. I can get you a polite letter from a lawyer asking you to stop. I can get you letter from a lawyer threatening a class action for all the harm that eerib has cause people who have been guided to dangerous trails. What do you need to stop this dangerous behaviour?

Cease and desist from the land owner politely asking you to stop mapping rogue trails on Private Property? It seems reasonable that if you had one of those that you would be required to remove it all, correct?

These accusations are not false. When local rescue organizations are also petitioning for a change of eeribs behaviour it behoves OSM to consider whose actions are inappropriate. Eerib is creating dangerous situations for innocent bystanders to the extent that everyone, including provincial and federally funded organizations are begging eerib to stop - eerib is a liability to OSM.