Recently getting into mapping (who knew this was so much fun!). I am involved with my town’s snowmobile club here in Maine USA and I’m trying to get us to a point where we can use the OSM data I plan on contributing to remake our very outdated trail map. The question I have is, there are a few trails, namely the one that I and a few other neighborhoods use to access the trail system, that used to be part of the trail system and thusly has a name. People use these in the summer to walk and ride horses on and bike, so the land isn’t completely posted but the snowmobile portion of it is no longer allowed except for local access, should I put the name of the path i’m making on OSM as the trail name with “(Former)” appended or just the name and under the keys set snowmobile to permissive and leave a note.
“Former” is meta data and shouldn’t appear in the name field.
Possible alternatives are to use the old_name tag, or, if the name is still used locally, there is a also a tag for local names.
I’m not sure permissive is right. I’d need a better understanding of what was actually allowed. Permissive is not very far sure of yes. Yes means that there is a right to use and it would be difficult to remove that right. Permissive means there is a right to use and, although permission could be withdrawn with little formality, it is unlikely to be withdrawn in the near future. For someone looking for trails to use for a purpose, next week or next month, there is really no difference between yes and permissive. Most footpaths in public parks in the UK are only permissive, if they were mapped accurately.
The real distinction you may want is between designated and yes.
Another option is to use snowmobile=destination which implies only local access.
This tag is widely used for trucks (hgv=destination) & automobiles (car=destination or motor_vehicle=destination) where only residents, visitors or people making deliveries are allows to use a road or service road, but there is no reason why the value cannot be used for managing access for other transport modes.
My reading of the situation is that these former trails are now only to be used for access to the main trail network (which in this case would be the destination). Do snowmobilers unload their vehicles at these access points? Or are most users sufficiently local to the points to get there on their snowmobile?
Thanks for the answers guys. This trail is for people to get on right from their homes, there’s no place to park and ride from where I am referencing in this specific case. So these posts now give me a few more questions.
Which is the case, the club works with the landowners to establish the trails, which are open to anyone (legally they have to register their sled and all that good stuff) regardless if they are a member or not, so permissive is sounding like it’s the way to go.
@hadw I think you may have mis-understood AndrewMC6 on this point. I presume he is referring to Maine’s legal requirements for riding a snowmobile, see here. Registration is more akin to a UK Driving Licence: a requirement for all.
For the access routes snowmobile=destination sounds exactly right. For the general trail system either permissive or designated sounds right, probably the former. Reading the legal stuff it sounds as if the sections of regular highway where snowmobile access is allowed are worthy of mapping.
You’re spot on, legal registering to be able to ride within the state.
Now I am noticing a LARGE number of trails throughout the state say “Snowmobile ITS 89” “Snowmobile XYZ” Is that metadata of “snowmobile” not supposed to be in the name field. I want to make sure before I start hacking away at bulk edits