Dear Shinsplints,

I want to emphasize that the approach your group is currently taking may lead to unintended and counterproductive consequences.

The use of threats and intimidation toward multiple members of the outdoor community, which has been documented and reported to the authorities by multiple parties, diminishes the reputation of the mountain bike community and may result in criminal charges for offending individuals.

Contacting politicians and government staff with the message that your group is creating unsanctioned trails that pose safety risks is only going to result in additional funding for enforcement and decommissioning. Similarly, the use of the tragic Deadfall incident is only going to put the tragedy under further legal scrutiny which increases the potential for legal and enforcement actions for the high-profile mountain biker associated with the trail and tragedy.

Elected officials are now requesting additional information from staff and meetings with members of the outdoor community. This creates the possibility that information previously kept out of the public or political discussion, including information that reflects negatively on the mountain biking community may surface.

To reiterate, I strongly recommend your group think twice about continuing down the current path and instead choose to work constructively with the OpenStreetMap community.

As previously mentioned, you and other members of your group are welcome to initiate a discussion on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum to share constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the tagging schema. You may also submit a formal tagging schema proposal for community consideration.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

osm.wiki/Proposal_process

As previously suggested, one potential solution to address your concern would be to propose a new OpenStreetMap tag to identify sensitive trails. Applications that choose to support this tag could then use it to put such trails behind an optional toggle or exclude the trails completely.

Regards, eerib

Hello Shinsplints,

Please take into consideration that an authoritative body has evidence relating to the acts of vandalism, which I have personally reviewed.

If you would like to pursue this matter further, you may wish to raise it with the Data Working Group at data@openstreetmap.org.

Cheers, eerib

I don't recall seeing any signage and I looked through my photo records and don't see any signage about e-bikes. My guess is that any signage put up was likely targeted at e-moto's like Surrons that frequently get incorrectly lumped in with e-bikes.

With that said, in the City of Delta Parks Regulation Bylaw 8544, 2025 it does appear that electric bicycles are not allowed on any municipal park trails unless there is an official sign allowing them.

https://delta.civicweb.net/document/246615/

In the definition section (2.1) it classifies electric bicycles as an “Off-Road Vehicle” and in the vehicles section (5.1.2) it says one must not drive or operate an off-road vehicle unless designated by official signage. My understanding is that this means that an electric bicycle can only be ridden on trails where they are allowed by official signage.

I would recommend reaching out to the City of Delta and asking for clarification and to update their Parks Regulation Bylaw.

Hello Shinsplints,

The criminal and deceitful actions have been previously explained to you multiple times, in particular the vandalism of the Newt Trail guideposts and the AI generated photo you provided.

The OpenStreetMap community has decided that unofficial difficulty ratings can be applied to trails without ratings based on the corresponding criteria. This has been common practice for years, see sac_scale as an example. This is the exactly how applications focused on mountain biking like TrailForks and MountainProject work as well.

If you have constructive feedback then you're welcome to take it to the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Cheers, eerib

Hello Shinsplints,

I want to first start by recommending you create a a discussion topic on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum if you have constructive feedback to provide to improve the tagging schema. You are also able to submit a tagging schema proposal to the community if you would like. Obviously my previous recommendation of reconciling with the OpenStreetMap community first by apologizing for the criminal and deceitful actions still stands.

https://community.openstreetmap.org

osm.wiki/Proposal_process

I fail to see what the issue is with applying an 'unridable uphill' rating to a trail that cannot be ridden uphill.

IMBA ratings are commonly applied by designated authorities and mountain bike associations to uphill only trails so it makes sense that we apply that rating to those trails as well. We can designate that a trail is legally only able to be riden uphill by using oneway:bicycle=yes with the corresponding way direction. Well designed apps will display arrows along the trail rendering to illustrate this. This is exactly how TrailForks handles it. In this case, your issue seems to be with Strava lacking the arrows rather than with the OpenStreetMap tagging schema.

The issue with index values for the IMBA tag being displayed on Strava is specifically a Strava issue. The index values, whether it starts at 0 or your preference of 1, is meaningless as users only care about the symbolized value (shape & colour).

You may consider reaching out to Strava and providing them with constructive feedback to resolve the issues you're having with their rendering style.

Cheers, eerib

Hello Shinsplints,

I think there is some confusion here in that you think the IMBA rating should only apply to trails designed for downhill travel, however IMBA ratings can apply to downhill, flat, or uphill trails. That is why I've re-added the IMBA rating.

The mtb:scale:uphill rating is a separate rating and doesn't mean that other ratings should be removed.

Cheers, eerib

Hello Shinsplints,

The first question you have is better suited for the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org

OpenStreetMap already provides some tags for handling the trail attributes you described.

Trails that are unsanctioned can be attributed with informal=yes.

informal=yes

Trails that have been decommissioned can be attributed as such with the suitable lifecycle prefix.

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Trails that are difficult and thus present a danger to inexperienced users can be attributed with the suitable difficulty.

sac_scale=*

mtb:scale:imba=*

horse_scale=*

dirtbike:scale=*

Currently, there is no approved documented tag to handle "sensitive" trails. I have recommended to your group several times that they may wish to draft and submit a proposal for such a tag. Please note that such a tag would need to meet OpenStreetMap's verifiability guidelines and therefore would require some form of posted signage or web information from the designated government authority or another designated authority.

osm.wiki/Proposal_process

If you do choose to move forward with submitting a proposal I would recommend first making amends with the OpenStreetMap community by apologizing for the prior criminal and deceitful actions made by members of your group.

You may also want to attend an OpenStreetMap Trails Working Group meeting and discuss the topic with the government agencies and app developers to help guide your proposal.

https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/working-groups/

Hello all,

I just wanted to chime in and provide some context to this situation and insight.

User RNWhis, who has admitted to building the trail, reached out to me in late April 2026 via private message. In the first message, RNWhis mentioned that the trail had been under construction for 5 years and would be completed in summer 2026 (likely referring to the upper section being connected to where the upper entrance of the Zanarchy trail is).

I explained to RNWhis OpenStreetMap policies, provided the relevant wiki pages that discuss the policies, and also provided an explanation for why removal of the trail from OpenStreetMap would not immediately result in the trail removed from other platforms (most consumer trail applications only update their OpenStreetMap data on a quarterly to yearly schedule so removal would not create the desired outcome). I also provided user RNWhis information on how the trail can be marked sensitive on the TrailForks platform and therefore immediately hidden from public view, which is the main platform used by mountain bikers in the Whistler region.

In late April 2026, user RNWhis edited the trail to switch it to a construction feature and shortly thereafter in early May 2026, I fixed some basic tagging issues but left the trail as a construction feature given the discussion with RNWhis and the information he had provided to me.

In mid May 2026 user RNWhis again reached out to me, upset that the trail was still showing up on consumer trail applications (again, most consumer trail applications only update their OpenStreetMap data on a quarterly to yearly schedule so removal would not happen as quickly as RNWhis would expect), and told me that the trail was now deactivated and that there was a sign at the top attributing the deactivation to the consumer trail applications not having the trail removed from their platforms.

In early June 2026, a follow-up detailed survey was done. No deactivations were noted. No new deactivation signage was noted. Construction works were only noted at the very top end of the trail as it approached the Zanarchy trail entrance. Signs of significant use were noted. The trail entrance and exit were very apparent. Flagging tape was noted near the trail entrance at the lake area. Signage stated "This Trail is a Work in Progress" and "Status: Rideable but not finished". If what RNWhis had previously told me was correct, then I would have marked the trail decommissioned or left it as a construction feature, depending on the situation. However, every finding directly contradicted what I had been told. In addition, available online datasets show that this trail started seeing use in mid-2025 and continued through-out 2026. This included public heatmap data on multiple public consumer applications, which had resulted in multiple community members finding this trail prior to it's inclusion in the OpenStreetMap dataset. As a result, the trail feature was updated from a construction feature to a standard trail feature.

In around August 2026, the trail is said to have been decommissioned by RNWhis and the new signage put up attributing that to it's inclusion in the OpenStreetMap dataset. I have personally heard credible reports that the trail has been decommissioned but I haven't been able to confirm it for myself. I am personally fine with trusting the reports I’ve received, as it’s not worth the effort personally investigating the trail completely again.

-

In the past I have worked with mountain bike trail builders to ameliorate concerns however it requires early and truthful cooperation. For example working with user MMBnut, the Suicide Jimmy trail on Mt Seymour was left a stub feature for an entire year and only moved past stub form after a significant uptick in use was noted, including two separate trail running clubs utilizing the trail for group runs. This was also well after both parks agencies had learned about the trail.

However working together has become increasingly difficult as specific users in the user group have become increasingly hostile, expanding into criminal actions including uttering threats against members of the community, my family, and myself. In addition, there have been multiple instances of egregious deceitful changesets.

One particular example I will cover is the sanctioning of a short connector trail in Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve. This unsanctioned trail was upgraded with new bridges and earth works around summer 2025. In the process Metro Vancouver, the park manager, gave the previously unsigned trail the name "Newt Trail" to coincide with the nearby Lizard Lake. Soon thereafter, two individuals spray painted "Green Room" on the signs, posts, and nearby bridges. User Shinsplints then changed the name on OpenStreetMap to "Green Room" and cited that as the original name. I followed up by correcting the name change and making the default name to be "Newt Trail (Green Room)" as a compromise. This was not good enough and Shinsplints repeatedly changed the name back to "Green Room". In Changeset #176023407, Shinsplints even provided photographs of the sign posts that had been altered using AI to say "Green Room". Eventually this was caught as AI and corrected, at which point Shinsplints stopped trying to re-name the trail. This type of criminal vandalism and pettiness over a short connector trail's name and without regard for how it will impact navigation for other novice user groups that frequently use the park is why it's become increasingly difficult to work with this small subset of the mountain bike community.

That is just one example but there are many similar examples of egregious behavior, including other uses of AI to alter photographs. Altogether this has eroded the trust with and the ability to work together with this small subset of the mountain bike community.

With all of that said, I am still committed to finding solutions that address this specific groups concerns and hopefully future tagging proposals with do just that.

Although I haven't provided a complete background I hope this helps provide some context to this situation and insight.

Cheers eerib

Hello all,

Although I am not familiar with the Vancouver Island Trail or Schoen Lake Provincial Park, I wanted to chime in here and provide some best practice advice that was developed by the OpenStreetMap US Trails Stewardship Initiative (a collaboration of government, volunteer, and private sector stakeholders working to address issues in trail mapping, outdoor recreation, and public land management).

The Vancouver Island Trail website mentions that this section has a route with "no trail" that connects down to an old unmaintained trail.

For the route portion (and the portion that crosses the logjam) where there is no trail, I would recommend using the "not" prefix on the highway tag, so "not:highway=path". I would then add a note to this portion advising that it's just a route and not a trail.

For the portion that is an old unmaintained trail, if it is in fact now overgrown, then it is recommended to use the "abandoned" prefix on the highway tag, so "abandoned:highway=path". I would then add a note to this portion advising of the conditions.

The reason it is recommended to use prefixes for trails like this rather than simply deleting is because it's very common for new OpenStreetMap volunteers to come along later and re-add the trail they believe to be missing, often without the additional crucial details like marking the trail as unsanctioned, legal access restrictions, difficulty ratings, etc. By adding a prefix in this manner, the trail is will no longer show up on downstream consumer applications like AllTrails and Gaia GPS.

If the trail does exist, but is unsanctioned and poorly maintained, then it is recommended to use informal=yes to flag the trail as unsanctioned (I see it already was) and change the trail_visibility tag.

I did do some digging looking through several available heatmaps and public datasets to see if the trail does exist and could not find any evidence. While doing this I did look at the Gaia GPS Public Tracks and am not confident that these scattered tracks can be used as proof that the trail still exists.

I did see that this edit was reverted in changeset #189090092 and then subsequently the trails were deleted again in changeset #189131947.

If either of you have any questions about anything I've said, please do not hesitate to ask follow-up questions.

Cheers, eerib

Hello woodpeck,

I have sent you a photo of the signage as well as some more details via private message (for personal safety reasons).

Thank you, eerib

Hello Daniel Salomon,

I've reverted this edit as the building is still there.

See this video, which was taken yesterday (September 5th 2026).

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1102885239510943/

Thank you

Hello s2srider,

I already went ahead and connected it to the road in changeset #188599613.

changeset/188599613

In the iD editor (the main edit window), on the right-hand side you can select the background settings menu (hotkey: B) and then choose different imagery options.

https://imgur.com/a/nWibVpK

In the Squamish area, you'll want to use either "ESRI World Imagery" (Squamish 2024) or "ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) Beta" (Squamish 2021). I should also note that sometimes zooming in or out can also provide different imagery with the ESRI options (usually newer imagery the further you zoom out).

Hope this helps!

Hello s2srider,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for taking the time to make some contributions!

The only issue I saw was that the one end of the trail wasn't connected to the logging road. Other than that everything is correct.

https://imgur.com/a/mLno8OQ

You may also want to add more information about the trail, like if it's unsanctioned (informal=yes) or sanctioned (informal=no) and it's hiking difficulty (sac_scale) or mtb difficulty (mtb:scale:imba)

sac_scale=*

mtb:scale:imba=*

Thank you again!

Yes, reception is probably a better choice instead of recreation_desk.

The recreation desk describes an employee who sits at a front desk within the community centre and manages recreation programming within the community centre, like fitness classes and room bookings. This desk/employee has separate hours to that of the building and also the municipal services within the municipal hall portion. I couldn't find an appropriate tag so I used "opening_hours:recreation_desk" but please do change if you think there is a more appropriate tag.

I wanted to follow up on this in case my previous discussion message was overlooked and to ask whether you could provide further clarification or elaboration for why you added the description text "Best not to linger" and renamed the shelter "eeribs bain".

I also want to note that you have continued to make erroneous edits, which I have documented in the discussion associated with your most recent edit.

changeset/188201005

Dear PatGT,

Your changeset to this trail has once again been reverted.

changeset/188205651

In your changeset, you removed the legal access tag motor_vehicle=no, but I cannot find a clear justification for this change. You also shortened the description in a way that removes information about the trail’s primary use, namely that it serves as a primary entrance and exit for the Neuralyzer trail .

Additionally, you changed mtb:scale:uphill from 5 to no. no is not a valid value for the mtb:scale:uphill key. I would also like to clarify that mtb:scale:uphill does not indicate whether a trail is designated or designed for mountain biking. A value of 5 describes the difficulty of riding the trail uphill - in this case, that it is not realistically rideable uphill.

mtb:scale=*

I am aware that some accounts, including yours in changeset #186424970, have been removing mtb:scale:* tags from trails, apparently in response to Strava’s introduction of STS and IMBA difficulty visualization.

As far as I am aware, Strava does not currently visualize mtb:scale:uphill and may instead use this tag as an input to its routing algorithms.

This changeset continues your accounts concerning behavioural pattern which was documented several times, mostly recently in the discussion on changeset #187662944, which you did not respond to.

changeset/187662944

Cheers, eerib

Dear friz57,

Thank you for the quick response. I'll go ahead and make the change shortly.

Thank you also for the kind words. I really appreciate you taking the time to say that. Your appreciation and support mean a lot.

Kind regards, eerib

Dear friz57,

I noticed you marked these roads as access=no. I wanted to reach out and see what information you're using to determine that these are private roads.

I ask this because when I look at the City of Mission GIS, their roads dataset shows both roads as being owned and maintained by the city. In addition, when I look at Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia (LTSA)'s ParcelMap BC Parcel Fabric Cadastre there appears to be municipally owned road allowances for both roads.

I did notice at the intersection between the two roads a resident has posted an informal sign, which may be part of the confusion.

https://imgur.com/a/iwHQfme

I believe the sign is referencing the dyke as being private, which it is, rather than the roads.

Kind regards,
eerib

I just wanted to double check the edits to this shelter feature.

In changeset/187609545 (version 2 of this feature), you amended the description with the text "Best not to linger".

node/13772796900/history/2

In changeset #187705107 (version 7 of this feature), you gave the feature the name "eeribs bain".

Are you able to elaborate why this was done?