"If there's only a hint of trails someplace and no other evidence and you haven't been there personally it's not a good idea to map a path."
Why isnt this behaviour called out more widely? It's endemic from some users in the Vancouver area.

"Because the map doesn't belong to you. OpenStreetMap is not a private registry for land managers or trail builders to curate what they think the public should or shouldn’t see. It’s a global, open, factual map of what exists on the ground. The job of OSM is not to enforce your access policies or preserve your status quo—it’s to reflect observable reality, transparently and accurately."
This is not the strong argument you think it is. It is a statement of what OSM does, but ignore the reality of your work.

" If a trail is visible, verifiable, and walkable, then it belongs on the map" - WHY? No one here can ever give a answer to this question.
Mapping is not a neutral action.
You are damaging trails and communities and the work that has gone in over decades to achieve the status quo.
Mapping a trail or something like a secret sauna then shrugging your shoulder afterwards and saying, "oh well, it is what it is, mark it as removed/closed/etc" is just incredible in it's ignorance.

"Pretending something doesn’t exist by keeping it off the map doesn’t make it safer, doesn’t reduce usage, and doesn’t protect your community."
It absolutely does all of these things. It's incredibly easy to trace the closure, destruction and increased maintenance load of trails that were off map and are now public. Or get promoted through vapid instagram influencers.

"It just makes users less informed. And that’s the real danger."" - Downstream consumers of the OSM baselayers do not get the tags, trail ratings, or other meta data associated with the previously off- map, trails. Surely you can see how this is now problematic? If i have no idea this trail exists, I'm not uninformed, Im unaware. Now I see it on the map but have no idea that it's a proline trail and it's easy for me to get in over my head. The latter situation is immensely preferable.

"That’s how responsible mapping works." - Well in that case OSM is not being a responsible mapper as trails are frequently added without proper naming, difficulty data, warnings, nor ensures that downstream consumers are acting responsibly when they get the data. If anyone here really cared about responsible mapping then these things would all be considered and they are clearly not.

"convince the community of your argument." - Lets be serious now. No one should have to convince the community. Your community doesn't and shouldn't override the wishes of the community which you are having an impact on. To suggest that one or two OSM users rights and wishes overrides that over hundreds of local riders, builders and advocates is absurd and offensive.

"Adding more data is a good thing!"
Everyone here states this over and over again, but it is not universally true. By making these trails public you are essentially promoting them which changes the very nature of the trail itself. Mapping is not a neutral action. And this case, causes damage to the work of hundereds of people that has been put in over decades.

"Access tags can be added to show that the trail isn’t public,"
Again, this is only useful if it is a) supplied at the start, which is very often isnt. and b) downstream data consumers show and/or respect the tags. Which they dont. Users of other platforms only see the trail but none of the associated data.
You might say, well thats on them to properly handle our data, but it is your naive approach to mapping these sensitive trails which is the root cause.

"everybody benefit" - No, not everybody benefits for the above reasons. Please please think carefully about your actions as a community.

I don't want to be a member here at all, but the irresponsible behaviour of certain users has forced me to join the conversation.
I've fixed the name here, but I really wish the user in question would realize the negative effect of their contributions.

The above comments just expose how little everyone in this community knows about the situation on the ground and in the sea to sky riding community.
The local SAR and emergency teams ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THIS DATA AND THESE TRAILS. There is zero need to have these publicly visible.

"these are standards which the community as a whole have decided on. "
Why should the OSM community decisions override those of the communities who build these trails, manage the land, deal with accesses issues, advocate for trail usage?
Eerib states he wants to promote outdoor activity, but their actions in mapping these trails do nothing but damage relationships, trails and communities and risk destroying the status quo.

"I see you main account has now been banned. Please be better in future if you still which to be part of this community." - I have no idea what you're talking about.

" the way you talking about it is frankly insulting." - The insulting thing is this community thinking it knows better than the people IN THE COMMUNITIES that you are affecting.

You should all think more about the impact you are having and how you are going about your hobby.

These should all be added from the get go then. Trails should not be added without the appropriate metadata.
I still take the stance that trails like this that the local community has worked had to keep off the map shouldnt be mapped at all as all it does it expose users to unneeded risk.
If they are to be added then a) it should be with full and proper tags and data and b) with the expectation that consumers of the data respect the tags.
Point b above is a HUGE issues as far as I can tell none of the data consumers respect that tags.

Fantastic! Now every joey in the world can find it! Great job. You know fine well that the metadata you've added wont show on the basemaps of strava, gaia, trailforks so is essentially useless to a large portion of OSM secondary users.

Again, you have refused to engage with the debate and instead hide behind OSM policy.

I'm glad you've accepted that you are now partially responsible for any injuries and SAR callouts that may happen here, because thats not something I'd want on my head.

"Rationale for OpenStreetMap's policy regarding trails has been provided to you several times so it's not just "how it is"." - the OSM policy is literally, this is how it is on the ground and so how it should be on the map. Which conveniently ignores all of the good reasons why that sort of black and white, absolutist policy is ridiculous.

No comment eerib? Continuing to map this trail is dangerous and any injuries occurring will be on your hands.

Why should 1 or 2 users be the arbiters of when a trail location is shared to the public? Especially when it's been deliberately kept that way for decades?
No local knowledge, history, context, feet on the ground... Did they discuss with the local trail org or SAR before adding?

"Not a reason to delete paths" - Says who? If OSM and it's users don't provide a way to hide trails that shouldn't be public that is a reason to remove a path as there is no other option.
No one here has given a good reason as to why these trails need to be shared publicly other that 'this is how is it' and 'this is what we do'.

The only entitlement i see here is that of OSM and it's 'power users'. You are have no local knowledge of context of these trails, how trail advocacy, planning, building and relationships are playing out or are deliberately not paying attention.

I looked at the banned list have no idea who the banned accounts, especially ones targeting a specific user.

Mountain biking has a long history 'show, don't tell' and thats to ensure that riders are ready to ride these unmarked/unsanctioned trails, to ensure they don't get shut down, to limit the damage done to the environment and the trail itself.

Emergency services here already have access to a mapping platform that provides the details of these trails that should remain off map. OSM pushing to ensure that everything is public all the time and refusing to engage in legit discussions around locally sensitive trails and areas is astonishing.

It's been on Trailforks since it was built. Initially hidden and marked as sensitive for the first year or so, then made publicly available. Given Kens relationship with Worca I assume that was all entirely deliberate.

I'm glad at least one other person here has some level of common sense and local knowledge.

I'm sure if Ken wanted it public he'd have made it so by now.... See The Thing.

Dangerous trail mapping.
Not everything in the world needs to be online.
The trail users who are good enough to ride this trail would find it without help.
Everyone else shouldnt be here.

"Continued vandalism will not be tolerated." - I see no vandalism here.
What I do see is 1 particular user hiding behind OSM policy and refusing to engage with a legit discussion around what is or isnt appropriate to be mapped. |

"The easiest solution is for you and others you know that disagree with OpenStreetMap's policy is to boycott products that use OpenStreetMap"

This doesnt solve the underlying problem at all. And I think you know that.
You think you're providing a public service but are actually doing the opposite.
When someone hurts themselves on a previously secret trail that riders would find when they were ready, thats on you. When areas and trails get shut down due to injury and overuse, that will be on you. Jimmy was right, mapping isnt a neutral activity, it has real life consequences that aren't always positive.

0 public benefit in having this trail, or any of the trails in this zone, publicly viewable

Do you have any idea how irresponsible it is to publicly map this trail?
Going through and adding every line you see on the strava heat map isnt helpful to anyone.