Hello balski,

I encourage you to reach out to the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group so that a neutral party can resolve this issue.

osm.wiki/Data_working_group

I am apologize if I have acted in any way in bad faith - sorry.

Thank you - eerib

Hello balski,

The display of this house is no different than other houses on Bowen Island. I do share the concern with regards to trespass but do not believe that it's display on OpenStreetMap will result in an increase of trespassing. I have already gone above and beyond by adding several tags to describe it as a private building at the request of user apsimpson. If you're affiliated with the homeowner then I suggest following established standards by purchasing inexpensive "Private Property" or "No Trespassing" signs at the Dollarama dollar store and putting them up along your property boundary.

If you disagree then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion.

osm.wiki/Disputes

If you would like to discuss legal issues then you should reach out to the OSMF Board.

Thank you - eerib

---

For any DWG or OSMF member that might end up reading this changeset discussion, I have suspicions that the controversy regarding this property is related to the legal troubles it has. The structures may have been illegally built and the users may believe that the building showing up on OpenStreetMap will exacerbate their own legal troubles. I have included two links that describe the past and current legal troubles that the property has.

https://decisions.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/Decisions/Dfull/dec_2022-08-00024_20222165.asp

https://bowenisland.civicweb.net/document/47127/

Hello balski,

OpenStreetMap policy is that mapping of private buildings is acceptable. Please refer to the page below.

osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

Hello apsimpson,

I do share the concern with regards to trespassing. I will add the tags:

- access=private
- description="Private residence"

Hopefully this will prevent any trespassing as a result of the building outline appearing on OpenStreetMap.

Thank you both

Hello balski,

Please refer to my comment on your initial changeset/deletion of this private building.

changeset/129757190

Thank you - eerib

Hello balski,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for doing your first contributions. Unfortunately, this contribution appears to go against OpenStreetMap policies and therefore I have reverted the deletions.

Please refer to the 'Ground Truth' policy, which I have linked below.
osm.wiki/Ground_truth

Further, refer to the 'Why we won't delete roads on private property' wiki page.
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

If you disagree with my revert of your deletions then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion.

osm.wiki/Disputes

Thank you again for joining OpenStreetMap. - eerib

Hello balski,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for doing your first contributions. Unfortunately, this contribution appears to go against OpenStreetMap policies and therefore I have reverted the deletions.

Please refer to the 'Ground Truth' policy, which I have linked below.
osm.wiki/Ground_truth

Other than the OpenStreetMap policies there are a few other reasons why backcountry features should be on OpenStreetMap. A few of these reasons include:

1. The location of these backcountry cabins is critical for user safety.

2. Professional organizations rely on OpenStreetMap data, including the BC WIldfire Service, BC Ambulance Service, BC RCMP, and Search & Rescue groups.

3. Deleting the backcountry features from the map only invites it to be re-added soon after by someone who perceives it to be missing.

If you disagree with my revert of your deletions then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion.

osm.wiki/Disputes

Thank you again for joining OpenStreetMap. - eerib

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I have a few pointers about this edit that may help in the future.

The technically correct way to mark a closure of access is to add the access tag with a value such as "private" or "no". You could add this to the recreation site polygon and any FSR or foot path segments. This would be the technically correct way to mark a closure rather than modifying the rec site name.

access=*

Further, if a FSR has been deactivated with cross ditches, you could modify the lifecycle prefix (i.e. highway=track to abandoned:highway=track).

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

I also encourage MoF to join the OSM US Trails Working Group. The group includes parks organizations and app developers looking to solve challenges that the organizations are having.

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

Cheers

Hello Mike,

It seems that you're a new user and may not be aware of OpenStreetMap policies on private property features such as roads and trails. Deleting these features at the request of a property owner is not the right course of action but rather adding the access tag with the value 'private' or 'no' is. It appears that you did add the access tag with the value no, which is correct. However, you deleted a portion of the road which is not correct. Deleting this road could impair emergency services like the local fire department and/or BC Wildfire service, among other potential issues.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Thank you!

I should have mentioned that I do encourage improving the OpenStreetMap representation of the path and cabin by updating their positioning and tagging, a few examples below.

The path could use more accurate pathing and the tags trailblazed, trailblazed:visibility, and assisted_trail.

The cabin could use more accurate placement and the tags capacity, ele, shower, mattress, drinking_water, and toilets.

The general area needs cliffs, gullies, scree to be added. Also the creeks could be marked if they're intermittent.

Hello valhalla121,

I received a private message from the Hat Hilton custodian (user: Custodian Hat Hilton) on June 21, 2022 and have received a follow-up on August 15, 2022. I will include below much of my initial response to the custodian.

I share the concerns with losing the cabin, misuse of the cabin, and potential safety issues that could arise from having the features on the map. However, I don’t agree with removing the cabin or path from the map and I’ll go into detail why and include several links at the end.

OpenStreetMap has a “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. If OpenStreetMap removed trails and other features from the map just because someone considered it “private”, “secret”, or a “hidden gem” then the OSM project would suffer greatly. If we delete this cabin, should we also then let the mountain bikers delete any of the hundreds of unauthorized trails they want to keep secret on the North Shore? Should we let any snowmobile group delete their unauthorized cabins? Should we let any NIMBY resident delete anything close to their property? Should we let BC Parks delete any trail they don’t consider to be official? Should we let MFLNORD delete any deactivated or non-status forestry road? Should we let any elitist hiking enthusiast delete any trail they deem overcrowded by the hordes of Insta-hikers? How would it affect the public's safety if we suddenly start removing trails and points of interest? The answer is tricky but the best practice is to map what’s on the ground but add as many tags as possible to provide context to reduce conflicts/issues.

With all that said, I do believe some self-selection should occur. I added this cabin and path to the map, and not others, because of its extensive public history, including a publicly posted map at junctions in the area, a public blog that provided information about the cabin for several years, trip reports and discussions on public forums such as ClubTread, Bivouac, Facebook, and Reddit and public tracks available in multiple hiking and sport-focused apps. Further, because the amount of information, of lack thereof, has resulted in a SAR rescue.

I realize you may not agree with my opinion above and still want the features removed. The correct procedure would be to reach out to a mediator (see Disputes page linked below) or the Data Working Group (data@openstreetmap.org) with your request and to reference our discussion in this changeset.

I have included several links below to various topics I have referred to above:

@Custodian%20Hat%20Hilton

osm.wiki/Ground_truth

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Disputes

http://ropewiki.com/File:M_Creek_sketch.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20170523115825/https://hathilton.wordpress.com/

https://bivouac.com/FtrPg.asp?FtrId=4582

https://bivouac.com/TripPg.asp?TripId=8088

https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/40761-hat-hilton.html

https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/40548-hat-mtn-cabin-tunnel-bluffs-none-above.html

https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/45143-hat-hilton-tunnel-bluffs-2013-06-15-a.html

https://writesofpassage.me/2016/07/24/hiking-to-tunnel-bluffs-a-hidden-gem-overlooking-howe-sound/

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouverhiking/comments/scqrda/whats_the_status_of_the_hat_hilton_cabin_lions/

https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/bc-news/after-near-death-experience-north-van-couple-donates-12000-to-search-teams-2506938

An update for anyone reading,

I received a reply from BC Parks today, specifically the "BC Parks Information Team". The message says "Thank you for your email. I can confirm that no trail decommissioning has occurred in Cypress Park recently."

I am ok with forwarding my correspondence with District of West Vancouver and/or BC Parks to anyone that is interested.

Thank you to Elliot and the DWG team for quickly resolving the vandalism of trail features in this area.

Dispute discussion can be found in changeset #124409974

changeset/124409974

An update for anyone reading,

1. I filed a DWG report on Friday with details about my surveys of the area and details of the past vandalism in this immediate area. I received a response back that the issue has been sent to a USA-based DWG member.

2. On Friday I emailed (from my OSM-specific email) West Vancouver Parks, BC Parks, and the Friends of Cypress Provincial Park asking if any official or unofficial trail decommissioning work has been done in the area this year. I received a response today from the District of West Vancouver Parks Coordinator saying: "West Vancouver Parks has not undertaken any trail decommissions in this area. The upper portion of this area is BC Parks jurisdiction, so it may be worth checking with them as well."

Hello Mark,

Please contact the Data Working Group if you would like to resolve the dispute.

osm.wiki/Data_working_group

Regards, eerib

Hello Mark,

The Data Working Group (data, “ат”openstreetmap“ԁοт”org) is authorised by the Foundation to deal with accusations of copyright infringement, imports, and serious disputes and vandalism. If you believe I am threatening you or breaking the code of conduct then please contact them. If you would like to have the trail altered then please contact them to help resolve this dispute.

osm.wiki/Data_working_group

If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again.

Regards, eerib

Hello Mark,

No, I am not threatening to deactivate your account. Only the Data Working Group has the power to do such a thing.

I'm going to reiterate my previous comment:

If you still want the trail altered then please contact then Data Working Group with your request.

osm.wiki/Data_working_group

If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again.

Regards, eerib

Hello Mark,

I'm going to reiterate my previous comment:

If you still want the trail altered then please contact then Data Working Group with your request.

osm.wiki/Data_working_group

If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again.

Regards, eerib

Hello Mark,

I prefer to keep my work life separate from my personal endeavors. I am going to end this conversation as it's not going anywhere.

If you still want the trail altered then please contact then Data Working Group with your request.

osm.wiki/Data_working_group

If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again.

Regards, eerib

Hello Mark,

I have reached out to colleagues of mine and, although it's not exhaustive, none have any knowledge of the deactivation works you're describing. If you can, please provide verification that deactivation works have occurred, it would be extremely helpful in resolving this situation.

I do not believe the trail being listed on OpenStreetMap has resulted in users attempting to "re-activate" the trail. The trail has not been listed on OpenStreetMap since Apr. 21 2022 and hasn't shown up on other platforms that use OSM data (AllTrails, GaiaGPS, CalTopo, Strava, ...) since April due to how they cache OSM data.

The trail was visible on OpenStreetMap from:
- Feb. 02 2022 to Mar. 25 2022,
- Apr. 12 2022 to Apr. 16 2022,
- Apr. 20 2022 to Apr. 21 2022,
- Jul. 28 2022 to Jul. 30 2022,
- Aug. 02 2022 to current

I have surveyed the trail since the deletion in April, once in early May and once in late June. You can find GPS recordings in my GPS traces. I did not see any deactivation works during either visit. This would leave only July for deactivation works to have occurred and the trail wasn't on OSM during that time.

@eerib/traces

Cheers, eerib

Hello Mark,

I have surveyed this trail and others in the area quite recently and extensively. I did not see any decommission works and in fact saw new trail building works occurring in the form of blowdown removal, brushing, and trailblazing.

Here are some photographs documenting the trail's condition and some of the trail building works:
https://imgur.com/a/PzxxgVR

I believe I have accurately described the trail with the correct OSM tags. For the few areas where route finding is required I have set the trail_visibility tag to "bad" and in other areas where the path is unambiguous and equivalent to an official trail I have set it to "excellent". I have also added the tags informal=yes and access=discouraged, which should make the trail show up less prominent than official trails in the area in most hiking apps (currently GaiaGPS but soon to include AllTrails).

It's possible the trail has been decommissioned since my most recent survey but I do not believe that to be the case. I have checked private mobility data that I have access to and can see the trail is still be accessed regularly. Further, your edits are near identical to past vandalism of this trail, which makes it hard to believe without further verification that decommission works have occurred.

If you can provide more information about the recent decommission works, such as letters from the District of West Vancouver/BC Parks or photographs of works then I would be ok with updating the trail's visibility, access, description, and lifecycle tags, which would be best practice in a case like this.

Cheers, eerib