Hello bookwus65,

I noticed you deleted the features in the area again over a few different changesets. Perhaps you may not have seen previous changeset discussions regarding this trail.

I'm going to go into detail on why the trail should stay in case you're unfamiliar with OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap has a "Ground truth" policy, which means features are mapped as they are on the ground, even if an outside group does not want them mapped. There are a few noted exceptions to this policy, including indigenous sacred sites, specific endangered species locations, and specific areas of safety concern. This trail is heavily used by multiple groups. In addition, none of the exceptions apply. That is why the trail should stay on the map but we can add details, such as access, description, and other tags to provide context. I have already added these tags but perhaps you may have some further recommendations?

Further, the OSM US Trails Working Group recommends that "Unofficial, unmaintained trails, renegade trails, and social trails" should be kept on the map for emergency service groups, junction navigation, and because the trail will just be added later by someone else but possibly with less information.

The relevant links for the information I've talked about is here:
osm.wiki/Ground_truth
osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information#Other_Reasons_not_to_Map
https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group
osm.wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Trails_Working_Group
osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

You can also read previous changeset discussions starting in this changeset.
changeset/120006279

Cheers, eerib

I heard about these peaks after reading a post in the "Bagger Challenge" Facebook group (linked below), did some research, and found a very old map of the area with the peaks labelled. Unfortunately, I cannot recall the map I found the peaks on at the moment. There isn't much of a recent use of the naming hence why I added the informal=yes tag, even though it doesn't have an established use for peaks, because neither of these peaks have been accepted by an administrative body (i.e. the Geographical Names Board of Canada, Province of BC, District of West Vancouver).

https://www.facebook.com/groups/baggerchallenge/

I'm indecisive for keeping the peaks, removing them, or changing to natural=hill. The "South Knob" could be confused with the other knob Northwest of Eagle Lake that is also informally called the "South Knob" (see link below), which could be a safety issue.

https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/94948-highlands-trail-near-horseshoe-bay.html

Hello Buskwus,

Thank you for adding this trail. I have included a list of tags below that you may want to add to the trail to give it context and to ensure user safety.

informal
informal=*

trail_visibility
trail_visibility=*

sac_scale
sac_scale=*

description
description=*

assisted_trail
assisted_trail=*

trailblazed
trailblazed=*

Also, if you have any personal experience with the "Mt. Liddell trail" to the North of this one, could you please add tags to that one as well. I have seen several reports on various platforms of users having trouble with the trails in the area. Thank you!

Hello Martin,

I agree that the cabins will see some misuse but other examples in the Lower Mainland region (in non-park areas and of similar accessibility) suggest that misuse will be the exception and not the norm. Cabins that do see frequent misuse are ones in areas known for reckless behavior (such as Stave West) and have greater accessibility (close to the roadway). An example of one such cabin that hasn't seen frequent misuse is the Ben von Hardenburg Memorial Cabin in Mission, BC.

I should mention, I do filter what I add to OpenStreetMap, as I know of more than a dozen cabins in the Sea-to-Sky area. The cabins that I have added (Rummel, Hat Hilton, Crolly, and the 99 Trail Association's cabins) are all well known. Specifically for Rummel, a map has been posted on Reddit, has multiple trip reports written on social media platforms, is well known by several hiking/trail running/peak bagging groups, has public tracks posted on various hiking apps, and the path shows up on the Strava Heatmap. Even with all that said, I have only added the Rummel features as undefined so that they will be available to various professional organizations but not show up in public renders of OpenStreetMap.

Finally, I do believe that increasing accessibility and equality to backcountry information will ultimately result in more funding for backcountry recreation and protection of natural spaces, which is a net positive even if some misuse happens along the way. However, I am open to learning about how OpenStreetMap can help prevent cases of excessive misuse.

Cheers, eerib

Hello again Andrew,

I further investigated the area as I had a suspicion that the Parcel Map BC was incorrect. I checked the BC Data Catalogue and found a file for the administrative boundaries of Indian reservations. The Penticton 1 Indian Reservation boundary does encompass the area around Mount Nkwala. As a result, I updated the boundary on OpenStreetMap.

I also did some more research on the trails in the area. Several websites mention the need for a free permit from the Indian Band's office to do non-motorized recreation in the area. If this is true, it would best be reflected with the access tags:
motor_vehicle=no
foot=permit
bicycle=permit
description="Access is granted via paper permits which can be obtained from the Penticton Indian Band admin office free of charge at 841 Westhills Dr, RR#2, S80, C#19, Penticton, BC."

Hello Andrew,

The deletions you're doing are against the OpenStreetMap policies. You can learn more at these wiki entries:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

There are multiple reasons why roads, trails, and other features should remain on the map and those include:
- Good coverage of all trails (including closed or illegal ones) is essential for some mapping applications, such as firefighting, first rescue, ambulance, search & rescue, and police.
- Trail junctions serve as useful landmarks for people traveling in the outdoors. It’s often best for maps to show those junctions, even if only one of the trails is official. People are more likely to make a wrong turn if a junction isn’t shown on their map.
- Deleting a trail from the map only invites it to be re-added soon after by someone who perceives it to be missing.

Although land ownership doesn't matter whether the trails should remain on the map, I did check the ownership. I checked the area with Parcel Map BC (PMBC) maintained by the BC Land Titles and Survey Authority (LTSA) and found that only a small portion of the features you're deleting appear to be on first nations land. Further, some of the features appear in the provincial Digital Road Atlas.

The best way to deal with issues arising from the trails is to correctly add contextual information via tags. You can find more information about tags in the OpenStreetMap wiki. Helpful tags for trails include:
- name
- access
- informal
- description
- oneway
- sac_scale
- trail_visibility
- assisted_trail

From what I can gather, most of the features you're deleting are informal mountain biking trails. I can see that they do get use because of the Strava Heatmap, Strava Segments, and TrailForks Heatmap. I understand that the local riding association and/or trail builders may want the trails hidden on OpenStreetMap but that goes against the OpenStreetMap policies as I referenced earlier.

If you're open to sharing, could you please explain what issues the area is facing? We're more than happy to help you solve any issues as best as possible.

I wouldn't worry about your edits, they are very good. I quite like your edits in the Indian Arm too. They'll make trip planning much easier and safer.

Hello robcocquyt,

I've reverted your changeset as deleting roads/paths on private property is not the correct approach. I've instead marked the roads/paths with a private access tag. One of the reasons it's important that we have these roads/trails on the map is that first responders and other safety-related groups use the map to respond to emergencies.

For more information on this topic, please refer to this wiki page:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Most apps and other online mapping services that use OpenStreetMap data will update over the coming weeks/months with the updates information and display the roads/paths as private.

Thank you, eerib

Dear Kelsey John Torok,

I've reverted this changeset after confirming that users are still taking the trails and that markers still exist. This trail has been deleted in the past and claimed to be decommissioned but that isn't the case. I will update the trails tagging to further discourage their use.

Thank you for the info. I added the trail in changeset/120770464. :)

changeset/120770464

Hello bmtennat,

This trail and other associated features have been discussed previously in other changeset discussions and as such I've reverted the changeset. I've linked the previous discussions below.

changeset/118919846
changeset/119721614

The trail was already causing incidents do in part to it's exclusion from the map. The best way to prevent further incidents or user group conflicts would be to describe the trail as accurately as possible through tags, such as sac_scale, mtb:scale, and oneway.

sac_scale=*
mtb:scale=*
oneway=*

Who did you speak to at either the District of West Vancouver or BC Parks and what was their position on the trail? I currently have the trail set to access=discouraged as per previous discussions but if one of the groups has another position then we can update the access tag.

Thank you, eerib

Hello,

I am the one that first added the cabin to the map. I added this cabin to the map because of it's extensive public history, including a public blog that provided information about the cabin for several years and discussions on public forums such as ClubTread, Bivouac, and Facebook.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170523115825/https://hathilton.wordpress.com/
https://bivouac.com/FtrPg.asp?FtrId=4582
https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/92476-skunked-hat-mountain-march-24-2019-a.html

The deletion goes against OpenStreetMap's "Ground Truth" policy, which refers to mapping things as they are on the ground despite objections. There are a few noted exceptions to this policy but none that apply to this cabin.

osm.wiki/Ground_truth

The OSM US Trails Working Group goes into more detail in why even some sensitive features should remain on the map in their blog.

https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group

I understand you may still disagree. Unfortunately, if everything that anyone considered to be a "hidden gem" or "secret spot" then the OSM project would suffer greatly and it would lead to safety issues.

Please let me know if you agree with bringing the feature back to the map.

Cheers, eerib

Hello John,

I noticed you deleted the features in the area again over a few different changesets. Perhaps you may not have seen my previous comment so I'm going to leave another here and send you a message.

I'm going to go into detail on why the trail should stay in case you're unfamiliar with OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap has a "Ground truth" policy, which means features are mapped as they are on the ground, even if an outside group does not want them mapped. There are a few noted exceptions to this policy, including indigenous sacred sites, specific endangered species locations, and specific areas of safety concern. This trail is heavily used by multiple groups, including mountain bikers, hikers, trail runners, Geocachers, and peak baggers to name a few. In addition, none of the exceptions apply. That is why the trail should stay on the map.

Further, the OSM US Trails Working Group recommends that "Unofficial, unmaintained trails, renegade trails, and social trails" should be kept on the map for emergency service groups, junction navigation, and because the trail will just be added later by someone else but possibly with less information.

The relevant links for the information I've talked about is here:
osm.wiki/Ground_truth
osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information#Other_Reasons_not_to_Map
https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group
osm.wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Trails_Working_Group
osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

Let me know if you agree with my interpretation of the OSM policies and what steps you would like to take going forward.

Cheers, eerib

Hello,
The features you deleted were previously discussed in a recent changeset. I've linked that changeset below so you can read through the discussion.

changeset/118919846#map=16/49.3794/-123.2515

I've reverted your changeset as a result. If you disagree with this action, I encourage you to contact the Data Working Group to resolve the dispute.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

I went ahead and changed the access from private to permissive in changeset/119687158 after verifying today that the land owner's signs are still up. I used the PMBC Parcel Cadastre to decide what trails are within the BPPL lands and which have an agreement for official public use (Baden Powell, Whyte Lake trails).

I understand the concerns but I'm going to side with the established OpenStreetMap policies on this. I'm going to revert the changeset and add some tags to hopefully ameliorate any issues. Please do not delete the trail. If you disagree, I encourage you to contact the Data Working Group to resolve the dispute.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

An NSR member (user: TaxusB) reached out to me recently via private message about my edits in the area and in the arbutus forest lower down the mountain in the British Pacific Properties Limited lands. The member had some misunderstandings that I've hopefully clarified. The member also deleted some trails in the BPPL lands, which resulted in the Data Working Group reverting the changeset (linked below).

changeset/118968582#map=17/49.36354/-123.27004

Hello,

Have you been able to talk to the trail builder about the trail?

Cheers, eerib

The land is privately owned but I believe the access is permissive. I've included a photo of one of the numerous signs in the area that were put up by the land owner several years ago. This area has seen moderate hiking use for over two decades. Let me know if you all agree.

https://imgur.com/a/VSVvEAS

I asked around and did some research and I was pointed to the newly formed US Trails Working Group. According to their blog post and suggested tagging, they would recommend keeping the trail but adding the tag informal=yes and access=discouraged (if the trail is interpreted to be a "A social trail, and access to this social trail is not prohibited outright, but is officially discouraged by the land owner/manager.").

Could you please reach out to the trail builder and confirm if he agrees with this interpretation?

---

The section from their blog post I'm referring is:

"The Working Group does not propose to remove trails from OSM if their use is discouraged or illegal. This would be contrary to OSM’s “Map what’s on the ground” rule, and doesn’t make sense for several reasons:

- Good coverage of all trails (including closed or illegal ones) is essential for some mapping applications, such as firefighting and SAR.
- Trail junctions serve as useful landmarks for people traveling in the outdoors. It’s often best for maps to show those junctions, even if only one of the trails is official. People are more likely to make a wrong turn if a junction isn’t shown on their map.
- Deleting a trail from the map only invites it to be re-added soon after by someone who perceives it to be missing."

https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group
osm.wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Trails_Working_Group
osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

---

The section from the BC Parks website for Cypress Provincial Park where I interpret them to discourage social trail use is:

"For your own safety and the preservation of the park, obey posted signs and keep to designated trails. Shortcutting trails destroys plant life and soil structure."

https://bcparks.ca/explore/parkpgs/cypress/

Cheers, eerib

Hello,

I am the one that added this trail and did some adjustments to trails in the area. I was wondering what the specific sensitive ecosystem is?

From my understanding back when I added this trail, the trail is a single track mountain bike trail that does see quite a lot of use. I also found that is was used by hikers/trail runners and by Geocachers.

My general reasoning for adding the trail was to prevent users from getting lost in the area, which was common in the general area due to the outdated trail mapping but also due to the unmapped trails.

I checked the wiki and the only entry I can find related to when not to map specifies location specific endangered species habitats, indigenous sacred sites, and safety concerns but it isn't an exhaustive list. Because the area is seeing quite a lot of use from various groups, doesn't go against the limited wiki entry, and has resulted in users getting lost, I am in favor of bringing the trail back. Perhaps we could add tags including a description, note, and informality to add context for the trail.

Cheers, eerib

osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information#Other_Reasons_not_to_Map