Especially coming from account with no osm editing whatsoever at all that made false claims as proved by eerib and failed to even apologize
1 Like
Please provide citation for this claim, and where such restriction was defined if your claim is true at all.
So you are guessing at best? And “were defined by those areas” was at best not verified guessing?
No, it is on someone making claim to provide evidence. Please explain where exactly IMBA confirms claim you made or withdraw these claims as false.
“I guessed that XYZ” is not confirmation of your claims, to be clear.
Attacking the messenger seems entirely appropriate in case of someone making false claims.
Attacking the messenger is bad when it refers to different problem (blaming messenger for bad news), not when messenger is spreading unverified info/lying/malicious or multiple of that or having similar issues.
1 Like
OSM is a project to record the reality on the ground. It is helpful for data consumers if we use established classification schemas to rate mountain bike or hiking trails. Because we record the reality, we are free to use that classification for any trail which is physically useable by that mode of transport.
@NathanRib I would like to advise you not to repeat your statements multiple times. We have read them already a couple of times and any further repetitions will not make any construction contributions to this discussion.
The repetitions:
- #4: “IMBA does not support unsanctioned trails. Applying an IMBA designations to an unsanctioned trail would be inappropriate.”
- #6: “And since this is a German system used throughout Europe it would be consistent to apply to sanctioned trails in sanctioned trail networks if used in other jurisdictions.”
- #8: “Restricting IMBA tags to sanctioned trails would be the right and respectful thing to do. It would also create consistency between jurisdictions.”
- #12: “If using a designation that originated in Germany (STS) or the US (IMBA) that were defined by those areas to apply to sanctioned trails, these designations should only be used for such.”
- #17: “OSM should continue respecting definitions set by IMBA for sanctioned trails if they continue with the IMBA designations.”
- #20: “Unsanctioned trails should not have the IMBA tag. This would create confusion for users who expect trails associated with IMBA to be sanctioned.”
At OSM, we accept that some people use multiple accounts for privacy reasons as long as they don’t use them for editwars and to fake a community. But on the forum, new users with zero OSM experience have no credibility for discussions within the community.
4 Likes
Moderator here. @NathanRib please refer to the fourth bullet point in the Mailing List section of the Etiquette Guidelines:
If you’ve made your point already, you don’t need to tell us all again
Please make your point, then move on.
For the record. I joined on July24, not July 28th with the hope of getting involved. I’ve been reading the forums to get a feel for the community. This welcome for trying to ensure clarity on what IMBA stands for makes me question.
Such vitriol and paranoia towards a concerned user, crazy. I didn’t realize the forums were just a farce.
I’ve let IMBA know about this and they’ll contact OpenStreetMap directly.
Peace out.
If you want to avoid that, then please just answer the questions that have been asked of you!
Also, in case you are unfamiliar with past history, see for example Mapping is Not Neutral: Why Adding Unsanctioned MTB Trails Endangers Access and Potentially Lives
Sadly, some MTB people have repeatedly tried to make specious legal threats, vandalised, tried to use law to defend illegal activities, harassed some mappers, repeatedly made pointless threads and threats while pretending to be a new user, blamed others for problems they caused and so on. It is entirely possible it colours view how people see other people of similar interest but otherwise unrelated.
2 Likes
What specifically are your questions? it was hard to wade through. I’ll be happy to reply.
We can start with “why would you think it is acceptable to mass-delete a tag that is the subject of an ongoing forum discussion without mentioning your plan to do so on the discussion”.
1 Like
I’m no longer reading the forum discussion.
The lack of consistency in how the tag is applied is one reason to remove it.
Tagging trails that do not have a ‘ground truth’ is another reason.
By ground truth meaning the trail is rated on the ground on an official map based on assessment within the network as a whole. Where each trail is given a thoughtful and appropriate rating after discussing the trail in detail. The people discussing the trail being the land managers and groups involved in their maintenance.
Currently there is a lack of consistency on how the trails and the icons can be seen on Strava. ( see attached photo ) also look on Strava yourself in the edited area. Compare to Trailforks for the sanctioned maintained network. If these icons didn’t show up where people were given the impression these are sanctioned trails, then it wouldn’t matter.
In the attached photo 2706 a sanctioned trail - seventh secret has an IMBA number, unsanctioned trails have them then don’t. The black one that’s then blue. Confusing…
Also, this trail has an uphill rating. And an IMBA scale 3 downhill rating, it’s at least 4. Very steep, variable tread pattern, grade easily over 15%, sharp steep switchbacks.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1543932449#map=15/49.36731/-123.05788
It is not ridable uphill, why that rating?
Random and confusion tagging.
Regards
Nathan.
None of that is an explanation for mass-deleting a tag that consensus seems to be leaning towards expanding the use of.
2 Likes
OpenStreetMap cannot control how the data is used as it’s fundamentally opensource. We can only work to provide as much detail and documentation as possible and to try to encourage outdoor navigation applications in particular to join the OpenStreetMap US Trails Working Group to be able to help shape the volunteer work we do. Proposals such as this one is one example of the OpenStreetMap community identifying an issue and working collaboratively together to come up with solutions.
Both Strava and TrailForks do not differentiate between sanctioned and unsanctioned trails in how they display trails. TrailForks even, arguably irresponsibly, puts the optional filter to display only sanctioned or unsanctioned trails behind the paywall.
OpenStreetMap is a collaborative effort. If you see something missing, such as a trail rating, then you’re encouraged to fix it. In fact, I already spent another complete day of volunteer hours and updated the area in question. You should expect to see updates in Strava once they update their OpenStreetMap data, which usually takes under a week but right now Strava is undergoing updates to their backend systems so it may take longer.
I gave this trail a black diamond rating (mtb:scale:imba=3) because it matched most closely with the sanctioned trails within the network, generally fit the criteria, and the switchbacks are an easier feature than other officially rated black diamond features within the specific network. It should be noted that IMBA does say “short sections may exceed criteria”.
If you feel that it should instead be double black diamond (mtb:scale:imba=4) then I would encourage you to change the value. OpenStreetMap is best when we work together to provide the most accurate dataset available. The best way to normally go about this is to reach out to the volunteer who originally added the rating, either by commenting on their changeset or sending them a private message, and coming to a consensus. To reiterate, for this specific trail I am in agreement if you want to change the rating to double black diamond.
The uphill rating is mtb:scale:uphill=5, which represents that a trail is “Way is too steep and/or difficult to ride uphill.” and matches both your and my opinion that the trail is not ridable uphill.
To provide an update, Strava has updated its basemap to display trail difficulty information, including sac_scale, mtb:scale, and mtb:scale:imba. As a result, the subset of mountain biking users who previously wanted trails to be fully annotated with difficulty information, or otherwise deleted, have switched their opinion to instead wanting difficulty information removed. Strava also now shows access information and that is also why the subset of users are trying to add erroneous access information.
3 Likes
See my reply below. For one thing the IMBA tag goes from 1-5 so many trails are tagged as IMBA 3 - blue and should be 4- black.
IMBA will be contacting Open Street Map about best use towards applying their rating system should it be used here.
P
Currently there is a lack of consistency on how the trails and the icons can be seen on Strava. ( see attached photo ) also look on Strava yourself in the edited area. Compare to Trailforks for the sanctioned maintained network. If these icons didn’t show up where people were given the impression these are sanctioned trails, then it wouldn’t matter.
OpenStreetMap cannot control how the data is used as it’s fundamentally opensource. We can only work to provide as much detail and documentation as possible and to try to encourage outdoor navigation applications in particular to join the OpenStreetMap US Trails Working Group to be able to help shape the volunteer work we do. Proposals such as this one is one example of the OpenStreetMap community identifying an issue and working collaboratively together to come up with solutions.
Both Strava and TrailForks do not differentiate between sanctioned and unsanctioned trails in how they display trails. TrailForks even, arguably irresponsibly, puts the optional filter to display only sanctioned or unsanctioned trails behind the paywall.
Fair enough for strava since they default to open street map with little information available. When open street map is used as a base map in Trailforks A lot more trails are present than on the official trailforks app. So I disagree that Trailforks shows unsanctioned trials. ( see attached photo). Also in this photo are trails marked 5 - double black, which seems a bit much, and a hiking trail that is unridable as a blue rated mtb trail.
This again shows the complexity of rating trails, and supports the notion that this should only be done as part of an organized project for the network.
NathanRib:’
In the attached photo 2706 a sanctioned trail - seventh secret has an IMBA number, unsanctioned trails have them then don’t. The black one that’s then blue. Confusing…
OpenStreetMap is a collaborative effort. If you see something missing, such as a trail rating, then you’re encouraged to fix it. In fact, I already spent another complete day of volunteer hours and updated the area in question. You should expect to see updates in Strava once they update their OpenStreetMap data, which usually takes under a week but right now Strava is undergoing updates to their backend systems so it may take longer.
The IMBA ratings go from 1-5. For some reason the ratings on OSM go from 0 - 4. So when you rate the trail as 3 it is a blue trail. It should be 4, black. ( see attached photos)
Also, this trail has an uphill rating. And an IMBA scale 3 downhill rating, it’s at least 4. Very steep, variable tread pattern, grade easily over 15%, sharp steep switchbacks.
Way: The Sandbagger (1543932449) | OpenStreetMapIt is not ridable uphill, why that rating?
Random and confusion tagging.
I gave this trail a black diamond rating (mtb:scale:imba=3) because it matched most closely with the sanctioned trails within the network, generally fit the criteria, and the switchbacks are an easier feature than other officially rated black diamond features within the specific network. It should be noted that IMBA does say “short sections may exceed criteria”.
If you feel that it should instead be double black diamond (mtb:scale:imba=4) then I would encourage you to change the value. OpenStreetMap is best when we work together to provide the most accurate dataset available. The best way to normally go about this is to reach out to the volunteer who originally added the rating, either by commenting on their changeset or sending them a private message, and coming to a consensus. To reiterate, for this specific trail I am in agreement if you want to change the rating to double black diamond.
The uphill rating is mtb:scale:uphill=5, which represents that a trail is “Way is too steep and/or difficult to ride uphill.” and matches both your and my opinion that the trail is not ridable uphill.
Sandbagger trail should be an IMBA - 4, black. You have it rated 3 - blue. As for assigning the uphill rating, trails that are unridable should not be given a rating. This is inconsistent with the rating system which implies if it’s rated it’s possible to ride.
Mateusz_Konieczny:
Also, in case you are unfamiliar with past history, see for example Mapping is Not Neutral: Why Adding Unsanctioned MTB Trails Endangers Access and Potentially Lives
Sadly, some MTB people have repeatedly tried to make specious legal threats, vandalised, tried to use law to defend illegal activities, harassed some mappers, repeatedly made pointless threads and threats while pretending to be a new user, blamed others for problems they caused and so on. It is entirely possible it colours view how people see other people of similar interest but otherwise unrelated.
To provide an update, Strava has updated its basemap to display trail difficulty information, including sac_scale, mtb:scale, and mtb:scale:imba. As a result, the subset of mountain biking users who previously wanted trails to be fully annotated with difficulty information, or otherwise deleted, have switched their opinion to instead wanting difficulty information removed. Strava also now shows access information and that is also why the subset of users are trying to add erroneous access information.
Interesting read, but not sure how this applies to correctly rating trails within a network. If there are random trails in a network that doesn’t justify applying random ratings. Ratings should be based on the trail sign which would have been determined by the land manager and organization that maintains the trails.
A friend contacted IMBA about this discussion. They will be drafting a letter for Open Street Map about how best to accurately present their rating system. Hopefully you’ll hear from them soon.
2 Attachments • Scanned by Gmail
it is useful to rate unsigned trails where rating was determined by OpenStreetMap mappers
and we will be doing that
(personally I am doing it so router will not suggest me to cycle where difficulty is high enough to make trip unpleasant or dangerous)
the only question is specific tagging method for doing this and potentially inventing new one(s) or promoting one of available options
please reread
Or Key:mtb:scale - OpenStreetMap Wiki
This does not imply that cycling uphill is possible, it outright states opposite leaving no room for implication you claim to be present