Hi eerib,

I appreciate your perspective on what I'm arguing for, but I do not necessarily agree. I've contacted some relevant local figures who are more able to weigh in on this discussion than I, and they will bring it up with the Community Forum and the DWG.

Again, I do not appreciate the association with the members of that mountain bike discussion; the underpinning rationales for the changes we each are interested in pursuing are very different.

Thank you,
Sun2306

Hi eerib,

Thanks for the detailed reply.
Moving the erratics and the node was the wrong way to go about this, and relabeling rather than properly raising the feature for removal was not best practice; I am not as experienced of an OSM user as you. I will avoid modifying features in a way that mutates their original intent in the future. Clearly, if I were interested in secretly deleting the features, you can understand that I would use a more robust method, and calling this vandalism could be understandable. I would far rather see this feature handled correctly.
On the "Mapping private information" page: I've read it closely, along with the "Why can't I delete this trail?" page and the community forum thread on unsanctioned trail mapping you linked. I take your point that the "Other concerns" subsection is marked as a rough consensus, but disagree with the iimplication that this makes the guidance merely advisory noise. It may be underspecified, but in the meantime, it would appear that the recommendation is to leave such a site unmapped. The recourse would therefore be to discuss ways to specify it before defaulting to mapping such features, which, as I’m sure you understand from your work, would be the most collaborative practice. This would be a good discussion to have with the community forum and perhaps ultimately the DWG.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

In the same vein, your remark that you’ve added "only a fraction" of the archaeology sites you know of is hard to read collaboratively. Given that there is no settled answer on what counts as "publicly documented," what "accessible" means on unceded land, and who decides the "public interest", it’s hard to interpret this through a positive lens. One might expect that these answers would be guided by BC’s Heritage Act.

I appreciate that you recognize me as a mountain biker, but I must also correct your presumption that this has to do with the dispute in changeset #182626615. I have long contributed to mapping the Sea-2-Sky and reject the idea that my interest is motivated by the same forces as mountain bikers who seek to vandalize OSM in the region. I am familiar with the discussions between OSM users and the recreation users in the region. I must note that their concerns and the concerns here appear to share a common root, in that they contest Western practices of mapping and ‘public’ knowledge on unceded land. Nonetheless, the issues are separate, though it would be lovely to further establish guidance on how local groups can protect their ways of knowing in this context.

Best,
Sun2306

Hi eerib,

Thank you for your comment. I understand how you feel about the region in question and can certainly understand your sensitivity, given brazen attempts at vandalism of your edits by certain members of the local community. Nonetheless, I do not think you need to mischaracterize my edits as vandalism, and I trust that you are aware enough to understand that there is no vandalistic intent. A feature was moved elsewhere because it was easier than deleting it and creating a new one, though I understand that this may not be a best practice.

I appreciate that your interpretation of OpenStreetMap policy means that you believe this area needs to be mapped. I am mapping in line with the "Mapping private information" page on the OSM wiki, which suggests that the general consensus is that this site should not be mapped, in line with the Squamish Nation's Land Use management plans for the area, which make the portion of this trail that accesses the site is not usable.

Of course, there is an interesting discussion here worth having with the Data Working Group on how to align OSM mapping practices with Indigenous knowledge and wayfinding practices. I acknowledge that you are a resident of a nearby area, and have photographed and visited the area in question yourself, and you presumably understand that the site is on unceded Squamish land. My concerns lie more with power users and members of the DWG who are residents of Western European countries, who seek to impose a European knowledge policy on Indigenous communities in BC such as the Squamish Nation without their consent.

That aside, I appreciate your other comments with regards to trails that might be demolished or blocked, and will implement them if relevant in the future. In the meantime, we can continue to work towards a version of the map that respects OSM principles and the policies of the Squamish Nation.

Best,
Sun2306

I will be proactive within a few days in carrying out solution 2.

Hello,

It's great that you are planning to visit the area again in the future, and I appreciate your commitment to balancing your dedication to the OSM dogma with the concerns of the various local communities (including mountain bikers) who use the infrastructure that you map. Your upcoming proposal for more MTB tags will doubtlessly help reduce these concerns.

In this particular case, safety concerns aside, I don't see how you can map the entity in question as a trail without many contradictions. It does not operate as a trail, nor as a path in any capacity. It is not a way that people use to move around; it cannot be followed or traversed.

I see three possible solutions:
1. Survey and see if there does exist a path here (since many collections of TTFs do have a path connecting them, but that is significantly different from the 'way' of the TTF, and might include tremendous variations as compared to the 'way'
2. Discontinue the way, and represent the area in question as a series of points of interest (probably the best choice; allows us to continue to host information about the area and its history without misleading map users)
3. Remove the area from the map altogether.

Best,
Sun2306

I can't really agree with this being on the map, given that it's not even a 'trail' or 'way' (i.e. you cannot reasonably follow it) and was partially decommissioned after the filming of the video, to my knowledge. Not only is it potentially harmful to have it listed (though I know you are not easily swayed by this argument), it does not really exist.

Thank you for your help; I'll be more careful and proper in adding Lillooet alt place names in the future (and for places with a Lillooet name but no real common English one)

Would "shw-muth-quee-um-AW-sum" be better to reflect θ?

1. I can't find anything on osm.wiki/Multilingual_names discouraging dual naming; in fact, the Canada section appears to recommend dual naming in some cases the case where the dual name appears on signs (like in the Sea-2-Sky). Many places already have dual names present (eg. Estetiwilh / Sigurd).

2. There are many ways to solve this. One could follow signage, more common usage, traditional importance, or perhaps some other rule.

3. The idea that the "secondary name is not used at all" is quite a bold claim. I am sure that Sḵwx̱wú7mesh speakers call their hometown Sḵwx̱wú7mesh.

Note: one can just call it Sḵwx̱wú7mesh; "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh sníchim" means 'Squamish language' and is somewhat redundant (though of course it depends on the grammatical construction in Squamish itself)).

I think it's a nice touch for the region in general - I can see the argument of it being toned down and that only specific places of traditional importance be given their indigenous names; for example, Whistler could stay Whistler, being in shared territory where neither nation would permanently reside, and Pemberton can be just Pemberton given that it is usually called Pembert(o)na in Ucwalmícwts (also since Nkwúkwma is the name of a new development in Pemberton and it would reduce confusion).

But for places like Squamish, and other important sites like Mt Garibaldi, Mt Currie (both the mountain and the town), Joffre Lakes, and Lillooet, just to name a few, I think it would be absolutely appropriate to have dual names.

We could, of course, also contact the nations in question in order to find out their thoughts on naming practices in their traditional territory (and language).