Can these discussions be held on this forum so we can all participate? Not all of us have the time to be part of the US trails working groups, and there may be people outside the US who could benefit from participating in, or observing, the discussion.
Well, a significant number of the issues in the âdiffâ file I posted appear to be issues with your data and not OSM, although OSM too has a number of issues (some of which I have fixed).
Thanks this method is very useful and we can use it for tagging to avoid errors.
You mention in this video to only add data that has evidence it exists rather than planned trails etc⌠So, for the trail mentioned earlier near 40.717738, -111.5496993 (Pawmaste), where it does not show evidence that it exists according to Strava heatmaps or aeriel imagery, Iâm curious how we get the community support to add the trail. Since it does exist and is open to the public, is it enough that we are the trail builders and managers that we add it with our GPX tracks?
1 Like
If you really, really, really know that it exists, then yes, but in a large (or any) organization often the left hand doesnât know what the right hand is doing so I would double check. If you have been on the trail personally, then absolutely go ahead and include it straight away, otherwise, given the issues with these data, I would urge you to double check. Fankly, I find it suspect that there is a trail of any type that has been open to the public since October where there is no Strava heat. I know a lot of Strava users that record activities (run, walk, hike) with their dogs. Many are quite obsessed with recording every little bit of physical activity.
I did intend to make a more comprehesive video, but havenât gotten the time.
BTW, did you check out the diff file I linked to?
The new trail Pawmaste, along with the new trailhead and parking lot are on Google maps, so I do not know why it is not on Strava heatmaps or other aerial imagery, but it does exist. Myself and @Seychelle_Marcus are in the Trails and Open Space Department, who is in charge of building and managing the trails, so we have personally walked it to get a GPX track, as a well as used it leisurely.
I do not want anyone to feel uncomfortable with our edits, so be assured that as the land managers, who work on the ground, we will not be adding or amending any trails that we are not positive about.
Yes I am taking a look at that this morning, thank you.
We will plan to use multiple sources when making our edits, as our goal is to make OSM data as accurate as possible.
Hi @tekim, I think there is a separation of understanding and translation from the OSM data side to the GIS data side. Referring to our bike park trails in screenshot #4 of this thread: Our GIS trail data that you are looking at is translating the feature layer onto your map in the direction that the line was drawn, this is not representative of the direction of the trail traffic, this is simply how the data was drawn to create it. That is how GIS data works. Again, this data is meant for manual reference and amendment of OSM data, if a user is unsure of the data then they shouldnât be making edits or addition to OSM data to retain accuracy.
Referring to this screenshot you can also see that our trail crew reworked the trail alignment in the area this year, and this has not been translated to heatmaps nor does OSM data reflect the correct trail alignment. Again I will reassure you, as public servants and employees of the County in this area, we are simply trying to aid the public community by updating the trail alignments with the most accurate data possible. The trails in our bike park are accurately reflected in our data and incorrectly reflected in OSM data. Luckily, through the OSM community mapping process, this community will be able to assess our corrections when we upload them to OSM, and they will be able to confirm that the trails are indeed accurately reflected in the gpx tracks and on-ground data that we have collected. In other cases that we are not sure if our track or OSM data is more correct, we are the on-ground field workers and specialists so we will be able to identify which trails we need to get a new alignment for and which ones we need to translate to OSM data.
I am traveling so canât respond d in depth. I have fixed a lot of the positional errors in OSM. Analysis should be rerun. Re dog park: other trails in it have heat, e.g. up dog and down dog.
1 Like
When you have time I used your diff file to add the Pawmaste addition to OSM, if you would like to check my edits. Thanks
I only have my phone at the moment, but there might be some criss crossing geometry where the two loops come together, and or double ways/polylines. Otherwise looks good to me.
1 Like
I looked at the edit with my laptop. Looks good to me. Others may have suggestions. I see @Seychelle_Marcus added dog=yes, that is great! Consider adding horse=yes/no as applicable. One little nit:
I doubt the two trails run parallel within 1 foot of each other for 15 feet given that the trails themselves are probably wider than one foot. Again, just a small nit.
The only positional work left to do should be the mtb jump lines and mtb skills areas (but double check). Then we can start talking about correcting tagging of existing trails and marking informal trails.
We should keep an eye on that trail to see if any Strava heat shows up. Perhaps there is a glitch in Strava, but if not it is very strange (maybe no one is using the trail due to winter snow and/or mud?)
Most certainly! This is the core of openstreetmap, local knowledge. If there is blank space in Strava but I walked the trail, and there is a path on the ground, especially a constructed one, not just a so-called social trail, nothing should stop me from adding that. With informal trails it gets a bit more complicated, sometimes informal=yes on a highway=path fits, sometimes it might be just a game-trail, so some care advisable before adding a highway=*.
2 Likes
Hey @tekim, yes as far as I can calculate it looks like the Pawmaste trail appears in your screenshot as having two parallel tracks because we tracked this with a GPS unit, accuracy can be 5-15 feet off.
The bike park trails are certainly as correct as we can track them, they were also tracked on the ground with a unit by me personally. So the only way that we can get more accurate data is double checking this with heatmap or imagery - but keeping in mind that a lot of the heatmap an/or imagery shows the old trails that were rerouted and also social trails. As mentioned beforehand, we are on these trails consistently throughout the year so we will note any discrepancies that we notice via on ground observations.
If the evidence doesnât fit the theory, judgement as to the correctness of the theory should be at the very least reserved until more investigation is conducted. I have seen a significant number of errors in the trail data from land managers, and I have pointed out a number of issues with the data in this case (some of it just plain sloppy GIS data management, e.g. overlapping geometry, gaps in geometry, etc.). With this data, sometimes there is no other Strava heat around, suggesting it is not a case where the trail has been rerouted (if there were two bits of heat that would suggest a reroute took place within the last year, one for the old reroute, one for the new, and there does appear to be some of those). Unless you have just rerouted a trail in the last few weeks, or it is closed to the public for some reason, it should show up on the Strava Heatmap.
Again, this was just a minor concern (a ânitâ), However, it does point out that ideally raw GPS tracks should not be put into a database (except as a reference). That trail junction is probably at the southern end where the two lines start to converge. Again, a minor concern.
Another little bit of feedback, you should not add hashtag=#basinrec to OSM features (you can add it to changesets).
I am still traveling and do not have the ability to do any additional in-depth analysis. Prior to starting my travels I did make a lot of positional corrections to the OSM data (no tagging corrections yet).
@astotes I noticed that you edited this way: Way: 1030483133 | OpenStreetMap setting access=no, and informal=yes, and deleting the name tag and the specific access tags but the official map at Interactive Map clearly shows this trail (Blackhawk Drop):
The website hosting this map displays the âBasin Recreationâ logo, so presumably your organization provides (or endorses) its content.
In any event, even if this trail were âinformalâ, I would not delete the name tag. Also, I would only add access=no if someone could be ticketed if they were found using the trail. Around here many places allow off trail use, so someone would not be ticketed for using an informal trail, but if someone were to be caught building their own trail (or modifying an official trail), that would be a different matter.