"Authorised" forest trails only?

Communities Switzerland
1

Hello Switzerland!

An issue has just been raised with us concerning a mapper deleting paths in Eschenbergwald Forest, Stadt, e.g. Way: 516343518 | OpenStreetMap, with the argument:

“Under Art. 11 para. 1 WaG (SR 921.0), forest trails require authorisation and are prohibited where they harm nature and wildlife. To the best of my knowledge, no valid permit exists for this trail.”

This would appear to come under the On-The-Ground rule for not deleting valid features,but is anybody able to comment on the validity, or otherwise, of their argument?

Thanks

Graeme Fitzpatrick OSMF Data Working Group

2

Hi,
imho: if the trail is really marked on the ground, then it, of course, should not be deleted from the Openstreetmap. If it really violates local laws access=no+note=* should be applied on its ways. Some communities accept also trails which are not marked on the ground, but which are just publicly defined e.g. on a web site.

3 Likes
3

They are misquoting the law in any case, the paragraph in question has to do with clearing of forest areas, which with a informal/desire path clearly doesn’t happen. Given (with narrow exceptions, essentially nature reserves) you are allowed to access forests on foot everywhere such a path is not per se illegal or even unusable (and there is no regulation that would stop us from mapping such a path even if it itself was illegal).

Tensions typically are caused by MTB/bicycle use (I’m not going to delve in to all the nitty gritty details and cantonal differences there), and we have now and then after consultation tagged corresponding access restrictions, without knowing the details, this could very well be the solution in this case.

General remark: we (SOSM) would appreciate to be kept abreast of any such incidents, we have good contacts with the cantonal authorities (and cycling clubs) and typically things can be defused before they escalate if we know of them.

2 Likes
4

Thanks for the details!

Basically, you now know as much as we do! If we do get any feedback from the mapper in question, though, I’ll let you know.

1 Like
5

Switzerland has fairly extensive public right of way (by foot) in forests and on agricultural land.

This doesn’t apply if there is an official sign (not a land owner’s) prohibiting it.

2 Likes
6

Hello, I’m the mapper who reverted his changes. Now, just today a new mapper deleted the same path again in changeset 187987537. Probably it is the same person with a new account created today. Seems to be done in a hurry since one path just got a node deleted. Appears to be similar “working style” as in previous edits, where he moved nodes trough half of the forest.

I know this path very well. Some of them exist since >20 years and are clearly on-the-ground. They are informal and tagged as such since not present on official Swisstopo map.

What to do now? I guess we can play this game forever.

1 Like
7

Comment on the changeset and report the user to the DWG. If you have any contacts with the city it might be worth getting an opinion.

PS: all hiking trail data is cantonal.

2 Likes
8

I have commented on the changeset; if the person continues their deletions without seeking a consensus, the DWG will be happy to block their account(s).

2 Likes
9

Interesting that these paths cause issues here. As mentioned, I am apparently not the only one who sees that mapping these trails fosters harm to both nature and the law.

  1. These are not footpaths and are used exclusively by bikes, not walking, which would be a different matter entirely. Riding bikes outside marked trails is illegal in Switzerland. Neither the duration nor the mere existence of a path makes it legal.
  2. Users modify these trails through various forms of nature destruction.
  3. As mentioned in my changesets, mapping these trails creates a pull effect: people extend them further into sensitive nature sites, causing additional harm.

OSM should take some responsibility and remove these trails, particularly given that numerous legitimate informal footpaths remain unmapped.

10

@Flying-Biker: Lies mal DE:Why we won't delete roads on private property - OpenStreetMap Wiki durch, das versucht anhand vom Beispiel von Löschen von Wegen auf Privatgrundstücken zu erklären, wieso das keine gute Idee ist.
Die von dir gelöschten Wege/Trails existieren in der Realität [1], OpenStreetMap bildet die verifizierbare Realität ab. Auch wenn diese Dinge illegal sind - was ich nicht beurteilen kann - existieren diese ‘on the ground’. Daher ist es deutlich besser, jeden Weg und Pfade mit korrekten access-Werten zu versehen (hier vielleicht access=nound vielleicht auch einer note=Von der Gemeinde mit einem Fahrverbot belegt, das in diesem Wald auf nicht ausgeschilderten Wegen gilt). Jede:r Mapper:in kann diese ansonsten wieder in OpenStreetMap eintragen, z.B. anhand des Geländemodells.

[1]: Die meisten der von dir gelöschten Pfade sind sehr gut im digitalen Höhenmodell von swisstopo zu erkennen swissALTI3D

Das höre ich so zum ersten Mal. Was ist denn ein ‘marked trail’ aus deiner Sicht? In meiner Wohngegend rund um Bern fahre ich mit dem MTB oftmals auf Waldwegen, diese sind in keiner Weise ‘marked’…

2 Likes
11

citation for that claim? this surely cannot be true in form you stated

(and it is not changing anyway that OpenStreetMap maps objects resulting from illegal activity, and this does not make their deletion on map legitimate)

(if these objects are truly bad and should be destroyed/blocked, contact local government or whoever else is responsible for managing the forest)

please, remember to use one account only

12

Thanks for the responses, though both of you are sidestepping the substance of the issue.

On the “private property roads” comparison: that wiki page deals with formal roads and access disputes on private land, not user-cut bike trails through forest habitat with no legal basis whatsoever. It isn’t a like-for-like case.

On “verifiable reality”: OSM’s own practice already accepts that verifiability doesn’t mean “must be mapped regardless of consequence”. We don’t map poaching trails or similar just because they’re visible on aerial imagery or a DEM. The same logic applies here: these trails exist solely to enable unauthorised riding through sensitive wildlife habitat.

On tagging access=no instead of deleting: keeping them visible and routable is exactly the pull effect I referred to. Visibility brings more riders, more riders means more extension of these trails deeper into the forest, which is where the actual habitat damage happens. Deletion removes the incentive; a tag doesn’t.

On “citation for that claim”: happy to provide the specific legal basis for off-trail cycling restrictions in this canton if useful. But even setting the exact wording aside, the ecological point stands independently: these trails cut through zones managed specifically for wildlife corridors and breeding habitat.

On “contact local government or whoever is responsible for managing the forest”: not sure that’s quite the fix it sounds like. That process has been running since the official trail network was set up, but as long as these paths stay mapped on OSM, they carry a kind of false legitimacy that undermines it. Someone finds it on a map, assumes it’s fine to ride, and the enforcement effort is fighting an uphill battle against the map itself.

The core point remains: OSM as a community isn’t a neutral bystander in this. Continuing to map and effectively advertise these trails after being told they cause ongoing habitat damage is a choice, and the responsibility for the resulting harm sits with whoever keeps them visible on the map, not only with whoever built them.

13

then please provide it, as I am pretty sure that “Riding bikes outside marked trails is illegal in Switzerland” is not a correct claim

also, please ensure that content you paste is not LLM-generated but written by human and verified

marking them as unroutable with =no tagging is not keeping them routable (but =no is for legal access, not for “I wish it was illegal”)

3 Likes
14

Das stimmt so nicht, auf Bundesebene gibt es keine solche Bestimmung. Generell ist das befahren von Waldwegen erlaubt, die Kantone unterscheiden sich darin ob das Befahren von schmalen Pfaden erlaubt ist oder nicht, und sehr enge Pfade, sprich wo es Kreuzungskonflikte geben könnte, dürfen wegen Art. 43 Abs.1 SVG nicht befahren werden (aber das hat nichts mit der Beschilderung zu tun).

Aber, und wichtiger: die Nutzung zu Fuss ist nicht verboten (Spezialfälle wie Schutz- und Ruhegebiete ausgenommen) also gibt auch keinen Grund solche Wege in OSM mit entsprechendem Tagging nicht zu erfasssen.

2 Likes
15

Laut Wikipedia ist der Eschenberg kein ‘sensitives Wildhabitat’, sondern das Naherholungsgebiet der Stadt Winterthur. Das spricht eher für Nutzungskonflikte (zwischen Zweibeinern und Zweirad-Fahrer) als für Wildschutzgründe, wegen denen du die Wege gerne nicht in OpenStreetMap haben willst.

Und lug, es geht ja darum, dass wir in OpenStreetMap die bestmöglichen Kartendaten anbieten. Wenn die Wege auf dem Geländermodell von swisstopo von Bern aus zu erkennen sind, ändert das nichts an allfälliger Illegalität, aber macht, dass diese eine - richtig erfasste - Daseinsberechtigung in den OpenStreetMap-Daten haben. Ich schlage (wie @Mateusz_Konieczny), vor mit access=no und note="Beschreibung der Sachlage".

16

Deleting or censoring ways one doesn’t want one’s map is a valid approach. If someone wants to make an edition of OSM that shows one’s preferred ways only, this can most certainly be a separate project. Many already do this.

17

this is not how I read the post from @Mateusz_Konieczny. access=no is for all modes of transport according to the Wiki. And this is not the case in Switzerland as we have ZGB Art. 699, and in this specific case, no forest reserves or wildlife protection zone exist there. There is also no official access restriction indicated by valid signage as per Signalisationsverordnung.

With informal=yes all eventual consequences for the legal use of this path are already fully implied from my point of view.

18

note that I mentioned =no

has there been convincing argument that this specific paths are illegal for cyclists? Or even to everyone?

As usual in MTB threads I am skeptical about legal claims from new accounts. At least - this time - there were no laughable legal threats.

19

Translated with the help of Google:

1. Aerial imagery/DEM visibility is not the same as being mapped on Swisstopo. These trails do not appear as official trails on Swisstopo. A path being visible on a terrain model doesn’t establish any legal or official status, it only confirms a scar in the ground exists.

2. Riding here is expressly prohibited by cantonal law. According to the responsible police authorities (Kanton Zürich), § 6 Abs. 1 of the cantonal Waldgesetz permits cycling only on official roads and paths. Riding off-road or on unauthorised trails is a violation subject to formal complaint to the Statthalteramt. Between April and July in particular, it can also constitute a violation of § 20 Abs. 1 of the cantonal Wildlife Regulation and Protection Law (Jagdgesetz), which prohibits disturbing wildlife, their young, or their nests, an exemption exists only for activities of predominant public interest such as wildlife regulation or forestry work, which mountain biking is not.

3. Building these trails also violates federal law. Removing vegetation to create a rideable trail qualifies as Rodung (forest clearance) under Art. 5 of the federal Waldgesetz, which requires equivalent replacement planting under Art. 7. Any construction in the forest requires a building permit, and trails of this size and purpose do not qualify as the minor forestry-related exemption. Art. 18 NHG additionally obliges authorities to preserve sufficiently large habitats for native species, meaning unavoidable habitat damage must be offset or restored by whoever caused it.

4. OSM’s role here is not neutral. The responsible police authorities have stated that publishing illegal trails on a map can constitute aiding and abetting (Gehilfenschaft, Art. 25 StGB) the underlying offence, since many riders would never find these trails without the map entry. Mapping actively enables continued use of trails whose creation was itself a criminal offence under federal law, and helps the unlawful situation persist. Tagging the trail with access=no doesn’t change this dynamic in practice: riders drawn to these trails are seeking the terrain and the thrill itself, not a compliant routing suggestion, and a restrictive tag simply confirms the infrastructure exists and where to find it.

5. These paths are meant to revert to nature, and mapping them prevents that. Once cutting, building, mapping, and non-permissible riding all stop, undergrowth and forest litter naturally reclaim these scars. Keeping them on OSM signals to riders that the path is there and usable, which brings continued traffic and interrupts that recovery. We’d ask the community to take some responsibility here and let these paths become overgrown again, rather than keeping them alive on the map and causing further destruction.

I have tried to engage here constructively, in a way I hope everyone can follow, because sometimes we need to give nature, plants, and wildlife a chance to breathe ahead of our wish for accurate guidance to the next sporting thrill. OSM keeps these trails alive by directing people onto them, and with that comes a responsibility the community has to carry. This is also a chance for OSM to put nature ahead of human convenience for once, and to act accordingly. I trust this community can grant that respect to our environment and take the responsibility that comes with it.

20

Again swisstopo doesn’t determine if a ‘trail’ is official or not (given the lead times for some of that data are quite long, it wouldn’t be a particularly good way of determining such a status to start with).

But as pointed out many times that is irrelevant, yes, actually building mountain bike specific infrastructure without permission is ‘illegal’ but you haven’t provided any proof that that is the case here, and if it is you could take OSM data to the Forstverwaltung to show them where the paths are and ask them to remove them.

I would note that there’s likely not a single municipality in the country that is without illegally built buildings and building modifications. And we map them anyway.

1 Like