Hi Welcome to OSM, Since you have a new account, wanted to let you know It's better not to remove data, just update it. Instead of removing a feature that's incorrectly tagged as a road, just update the feature type to driveway, and set access to private. Thanks

Hello, welcome to OSM. The feature you removed in this changeset is valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hi thanks for the reply! I was referring to the driveways not the road. If a road doesn't exist any longer you definitely can remove it from the map.

User michael60634 downvoted this commit in retaliation, nothing is wrong with it.

User michael60634 downvoted this commit in retaliation, nothing is wrong with it.

User michael60634 downvoted this commit in retaliation, nothing is wrong with it.

Hello, welcome to OSM. You have a new account and might not be aware, private driveways are a valid feature to map in OSM and should not be removed.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

Note I fixed power line mistake in next commit

Hello again, sock puppet accounts are not allowed on OSM. Also knowingly misusing the tagging system, removing the feature type, and incorrectly using the name tags considered vandalism.

osm.wiki/Vandalism

Info:
Kaushik_US - ID 23638597 (sock puppet)
Mani NJ - ID 23636455 (main account)

Hello again, sock puppet accounts are not allowed on OSM. Also knowingly misusing the tagging system, removing the feature type, and incorrectly using the name tags considered vandalism.

osm.wiki/Vandalism

Info:
Kaushik_US - ID 23638597 (sock puppet)
Mani NJ - ID 23636455 (main account)

Hello, welcome to OSM. The feature you removed in this changeset is valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

The driveway has now been tagged correctly, and will specify its access this on the maps delivery drivers use along with not routing them that way any longer.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Thank for the reply! yah Its not really made clear to new users, but OSM uses the tagging system rather then removing data. So if something exist on the ground even if its private/informal/illegal/unauthorized it should still remain in the OSM database. OSM is about ground truth.

Here is more information if you are interested:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hi, welcome to OSM could you describe why you removed this path? I see parts may be privately owned. But it still seems to exist on the ground. Thanks

Thanks for the honesty, sound like you are here to knowingly commit vandalism, and motivated by hiding unauthorized/illegal trails on public land. I'll be honest, it's hard to sympathize with the hard work when we are talking about what I suspect is an illegal act. I'd suggest going to the forest rangers and getting approval before damaging the forest in any way you see fit.

And yah, maybe this trail will get closed, but generally these trails are not closed because people hate fun biking trails, but because they damage to the forest. Good sections trails are designed with the contours of the land in mind. Rogue trails rarely account for that. This one seems to be a more or less straight shot right down a steep hill, hard to imagine this won't become a channel for water and erosion. I hope the people who built it considered that.

The forest would be a much sadder place if everyone believed unauthorized trailblazing was acceptable.

But that's not the point here on OSM. On OSM we just map what exists, we don't delete data because it's personally inconvenient.

Please keep individual attacks/comments off OSM. The person that originally mapped this has done nothing unethical or Illegal, no need to speculate about them.

I'm sorry you've had issues with trespassing. I'm not going to debate what you are seeing on the ground. But I don't believe putting up signs and barricades are ineffective because a map exists.

OpenStreetMap is a geospatial database about what exists on the ground, not what should exist. Countless private areas are mapped on OSM, including things like military bases, there are ways to keep people out without removing OSM data.

Having these features access tagged correctly lets people using these hiking apps know what's off limits. The trails don't disappear once removed from the map. I myself rely on correctly tagged trails to know what is private and public.

This community has had this debate with countless other users, that is why consensus was put on that wiki page to help people understand how OSM has chosen to deal with its own data in these matters.

Here is one part of that:
One of OSM's foundational principles is the "on the ground" rule. In cases where mapping is disputed, the conflict is settled in favor of the actual conditions on the ground. That means that even a dangerous or illegal trail should remain on the OSM map, provided it is recognizable as a trail to the average person looking at it in person. This does not mean we consider such trails to be equivalent to authorized trails. Rather, we have attributes to indicate trails that are dangerous or illegal as such. Apps that use OSM trail data—like AllTrails, Komoot, Gaia GPS, and Caltopo—are expected to make responsible rendering decisions based on these attributes.

That community consensus is outlined here:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hello again. Please don't remove valid data from OSM. It clear you read my last message, since you responded right away, updating the features access tags. But again you removed them.

Please read this page to understand why this action is incorrect:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Continuing to removed valid data is considered Vandalism:
osm.wiki/Vandalism

Hello, welcome to OSM. The features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hello, welcome to OSM. The feature you removed in this changeset is valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hi welcome to OSM. Thanks for your contribution, just wanted to let you know removing real features that exist on the ground is incorrect.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Thanks,

Check out this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hey, thanks for the reply! Yes, you are correct, OSM works best when local people update their areas! So thanks for coming and updating this area.

Thanks for the additional context. OSM is a community project, so without the additional context, it's hard to understand why you removed a feature that appear to exist.

One thing Ill note since you have a new account and this is not always clear. Features that exist but are off limits, private, or not open to the public, should not be removed from OSM. Instead, we use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public.

I did find a map layer that was more up-to-date in the editor called "Map box satellite" view, so I went ahead and add that driving course road, and set its access tags.

Thanks for the reply and your work on updating this area!