When researching a PoI from the armchair I stumbled over this curiosity: Way: Mahdersteig (gesperrt) (57718223) | OpenStreetMap - I’d like to know whether the talking community and the mapping community agree on this. Personally, I am not truly happy with the “solution” in the data. The way shows in waymarked trails (full blast) and thunderforest outdoors (as dots only.)
The linked photo of the sign on location says nothing about “gesperrt/prohibited”, it says: The trail has been abandoned by the maintainer, and that it presents certain difficulties and people walking there must take full responsibility themselves. I remember once @erutan phrased it “Here be dragons.” So below a poll to evaluate different methods of how to handle such:
It is fine as is
Yank the OSM way
Mark the OSM way highway=path+abandoned=yes+eventually other tags
Mark the OSM way highway=path+informal=yes+eventually other tags
Mark the OSM way abandoned:highway=path+eventually other tags
0voters
I will immediately vote for my preferred “solution”.
EDIT to ADD: Should the OSM way be left in the OSM route?
The linked photo is two years older (2018 v6) than the notice (2020 v7) that the path is closed. What if the sign has been changed in the meantime and the path is actually “officially” closed?
“Entry at your own risk” does not mean it’s closed, so access=no should be removed, and (gesperrt) should be removed from the name even if it was closed (it’s a partially descriptive name).
It should not be kept in the relation because the sign says it’s no longer waymarked.
I’d say the wording on the sign and it existing in the first place is a good argument for not removing the way. The sign doesn’t say that the path no longer exists, it actually affirms that it does exist, but just isn’t maintained/marked. (It doesn’t even say if it ever was marked/maintained).
The route relation should either be removed outright or changed to indicate that it’s no longer ‘official’/not maintained (remove ref=*/move it to was:ref=* or similar if it no longer has a ref number and potentially add some other tags). Only removing a single way from the route relation doesn’t really make sense if that way makes up 75% of the route.
I am doing that every so often. This is what makes openstreetmap fun. I just did that today to check out a note and found it 25/75 correct/wrong. The way from this topic actually not remote, but also not close to public transport.
It is tagged trail_visibility=horrible, so I guess all of that As far as I can tell this tag says, it is not possible to follow the trail from what is on the ground, instead map mandatory unless prepared to spend much more time wayfinding than walking.
A gut feeling tells me, the local chapter of the rambling club ceased maintenance, this happens sometimes. The way being a convenient shortcut to an alpine hut, perhaps too costly to maintain. There is tiny Strava heat with large gaps. I will certainly go there and have a look how an alpine_hiking path looks like after ten years no grooming.
The poll to date a bit inconclusive. Why remove it from the relation and at the same time keep the highway tag? BTW the name translates as “meadow climb”, the hut up its top though destroyed. Seems to be an old way.
Because the route relation membership suggests “this path is currently part of an identifiable waymarked route” whereas a highway tag simply suggests “there is currently some kind of physical way here”. I think people are making a reasonable guess based on your original information that the first statement is no longer true, while the second is still true.
Of course it’s possible that lack of maintenance has led to a situation where the path itself could be deleted or given a life cycle tag, but there is no way to know that for the purpose of the poll.
The little I know suggests to me, that the way is well known amongst locals. It might even carry some kind of cultural heritage. Ten years ago a mapper decided to put the name not on the way but create a relation instead, a route from Höllenstein to Bayreuther Hütte. From my point of view, that is fine. (The sign that says it has been abandoned calls it a “route” – this though not in the OSM sense of the term.) The relation even has a “ref” as @Woazboat pointed out – Now that one obsolete for a certain.
What intrigued me so much about this one: An obviously well-meaning mapper hid the way from OSM-Carto but it stayed alive in other consumers. I have no reason to doubt the honesty of that mapper when tagging path=no and that they did so after visiting the place.
I also wanted to summarize my options: When I go there I bet there will be trail-blazes on site, no fresh ones though. I will have to decide, how much damage e.g. is enough for a prefix: and confirm the other mapper or perhaps just a different sac_scale grade or obstacle or hazard tag and override the other mapper?
Judging from the lack of visibility in aerial imagery, and the very faint trace in the Strava heatmap, I’d mark it as abandoned:highway=path: there’s something there on the ground, but it’s not in any sort of condition to be called a “path” any more.
Paths like this are rarely visible in aerial imagery if they are not used frequently. There are visible traces in the lidar terrain height model that match the path.
The descriptive state suffixes in name=Mahdersteig (gesperrt) and name=Steinlackenalm (verfallen) should be removed in any case.
Mahdersteig should be tagged with informal=yes + abandoned=yes + appropriate sac_scale=* + trail_visibility=* if it’s still usable as a path (in some form). If it’s completely unusable (blocked by trees/bushes so that you can’t get through, parts have collapsed, etc…) it should be tagged with the abandoned:*=* lifecycle prefix. The current access=no tag and the ‘(gesperrt)’ comment in the name are incorrect since it’s not forbidden to go there.
Steinlackenalm should be changed from place=isolated_dwelling to place=locality (+ optional ruins:place=isolated_dwelling).
If the trail is too difficult to call it a ‘path’, I’d personally simply tag it as a highway=scramble ;)
The PoI that brought about this topic did not let me rest. No precipitation for more than a month, so no snow cover up till high grounds. Perfect conditions to get out! Mahdersteig being not far away, so went there too. First talked with a local. He walks it from time to time. It is steep. 2km distance, 800m altitude. I’d had to have got up earlier, no way on January First. So perhaps just look at the beginning?
Surprise! The sign is gone. A slim path on the ground. Followed it for a few metres, surprise surprise: A trail blaze! Conspicuously made so it cannot be seen from where the path starts. Further blazes up serve both directions
Mission completed? Happy to not have to decide whether an obstacle completely barrs the trail or whether I am just lacking some Sac Foo! Back in the armchair I learned that the blazes are there at least since June 2018. Not sure now how mappers in later times found it closed?
