Hi Makeena, thanks for your detailed response.

Given that these paths have been blocked at both ends for a few years now and are significantly overgrown (these forests change incredibly quickly, same happens in Sihlwald), I think they have indeed "fallen into serious disrepair". Otherwise, I think the "disused" lifecycle prefix would still apply.

I believe "mapping what's on the ground" should also mean that unusable or formerly accessible paths should be marked with a lifecycle prefix. I last surveyed the area last summer, so will have a look again when I'm going up to Höhrohnen the next time. I would then take the liberty to revert the prefixes, if appropriate.

Happy mapping!

Hi Makeena, I am wondering why you changed the tags for the ways 979690186, 979690187, 979690188 from "abandoned:highway" to "highway"?

As these paths are blocked off at both ends and are overgrown in reality, I don't think it makes sense to have them appear as paths just with access=no on the map.

However, I would keep them in OSM to prevent terrain model users from re-mapping them.

Curious to hear your perspective, happy mapping.

Hello Sturzenegger and Makeena, I just came across your changes in Sihlwald Kernzone.

I also ask you not to just delete ways, I had already asked them as abandoned and no access before (osm.org/changeset/151512543). I also believe that it is important not to show illegal (or possibly disappeared/overgrown) paths in nature reserves on the map.

However, it is important to keep them in OSM with complete tags (e.g. abandoned:highway and access=no). Otherwise, it is quite likely that people will see a "missing path" on the terrain model and map them again. I suspect that this is exactly what had happened when they were added for the first time back in 2019.

Thank you and happy mapping.

I was wrong and there is a couloir up to Truein that can be passed by experienced hikers/climbers (SAC T4+). I have reverted and refined this in changeset 151026070.