Re: Stamen, Patrolling Trails in OpenStreetMap

Posted by malenki on 24 March 2016 in English (English)

Here the mail I sent¹ as reply to Dan

Hi Dan,

here you describe how you fixed social paths in a nature reserve.
Sure, you fixed them regarding what you needed – but the still look strange to me.
Can “unauthorized” trails be access=no, foot=permissive/yes?
Was this way a former part of an official trail?:
If yes, an explanation would be nice.
If no, the name should be removed. Else it could be mistaken with the official trail with the same name – and maybe a mapper will “fix” this.
And a (social_)path with name=Trail – seriously?

Regrettably Stamen obviously failed to convince to use OSM based maps for their website as well as for their app.

¹ I would like have to commented on-site, but even trying three browsers I wasn’t successful. The furthest I got with Chromium, where “Medium” always tells my “you got logged out”. No indication how to login, though. The link “log in with email” just triggers another registration mail.
And I am not too keen to register with the umpteenth web4.0-upstart-foo-stuff I’d only use once in 50 years or so.
PS: “The email account that you tried to reach is disabled.”
So much for good old ways of communication

Location: Fresno County, California, USA

Comment from escada on 25 March 2016 at 14:38

There is a discussion going on on the talk-us mailing list as well. Frederik Ramm asked a similar question as you.

Comment from malenki on 25 March 2016 at 15:54

Thanks for pointing out. I didn’t manage to link that discussion here as I was pointed to it yesterday evening, luckily you did. :)
Frederik asks the IMHO more important question. My point is only looking at the single-mindedness of the editing mapper who edited the data only in regard of his problem but not in regard of “having a reasonyble tagged way”.

Login to leave a comment