Er enig med deg at dette er en mulighet å gjøre det på, Da det gjelder din personlige refleksjon så var det mye mer trafikk enn det du antyder. Det er også blitt gjort hærverk på henger etc. til og med grensemerket er blitt revet opp. Men nok om det, det ser ut som de fleste her inne er veldig sikre på at det alltid har gått sti der, da vil jeg snu det litt på hodet, jeg foreslår at de kan bevise at så er tilfelle, og det må da være før veien ble bygd, den var ferdig i 1995-1996. Før det var det ingenting der som stien er blitt til. det er jo egentlig det dette dreier seg om.
Jeg er fullstendig klar over allemannsretten, men det er også noe som heter allemannsplikten om det å ferdes uten å sette spor. Det er vanskelig hvis alle som går, går i samme spor.
Ja, men det er jo også en separat sak fra at folk tar seg en tur i lyngen. Uansett veldig trist. Men jeg mener også at hvis dere snudde på det og faktisk hadde en sti med “Her kan dere gå”-skilt så kan man jo skille dem fra hengeren med en liten busk. Jeg går aldri på tur så jeg vet ikke hvor vildsinte folk er med å gjøre hærverk, men jeg tror på at folk flest viser så mye hensyn de kan når man passerer andres eiendom. Det ville i hvert fall jeg ha gjort - spesielt hvis det var en pen sti å gå på. Som sagt, det er min drøm om evig fred på Sprengsneset
Det tror jeg ikke de fleste er, men jeg tror de fleste er enige i at dette er en sti, eller tråkk, kall det hva du vil, som folk går på. Det er helt vanlig å tegne inn både offisielle og inoffisielle stier i OSM - bare de er i bruk og gir noen slags mening. Det er nå-situasjonen som har betydning.
Som du ser heller også avstemmingen mot: The path is drawn as a way in OSM with the tags
note=Disputed path . Det betyr at @harahu vil kunne legge inn stien igjen.
Jeg håper at dere avklarer saken i kommunen, og ikke går for mer OSM-kriging. Med såpass enhellig stemme så vil frem-og-tilbake-mapping bare føre til blokkering av kontoer.
Jeg har selv sett folk klatre på hengeren deres - og stoppet dem fra det. Selv om vi er uenige i mye, kan vi da være enige om at folk ikke skal ødelegge privat eiendom.
I dette tilfellet var det en barnefamilie som kom, og tydelig ble litt i villrede da de kom til en sperret sti. Så mens de sto der, klatret ungene litt på hengeren før de snudde og gikk tilbake. Så i dette tilfellet vil jeg faktisk si at det var det at det ikke var en sti der som gjorde at folk klatret på hengeren…
I think any interested parties have been given a chance to vote by now. It seems like their suggestions have been embraced.
Do you guys mind if I implement them?
I have reinstated the path, trying to incorporate the feedback accumulated in this tread.
I’ve added the following tags:
access=unknown where appliccable
trail_visibility=bad where the path has been attempted removed
note linking back to this thread.
Hope that’s ok with you all.
The path lasted a single day before it was deleted again by one of the users mentioned in this thread. See: Changeset: 142934664 | OpenStreetMap
I take it that they’re not interested in the community opinion, which seems to be that the path can stay until any further information/documentation is put on the table indicating otherwise.
At this point I’m a bit at a loss as to what I should do.
Do I re-engage in an edit war? Do I let them have it their way and just abandon this path?
I’d appreciate any advice I can get from mappers reading this thread.
Report to the Data Working Group with a link to this topic.
I think they’re already monitoring this thread. @Fizzie41 is a DWG member, and has participated helpfully in the conversation. I think @SomeoneElse might be following it as well. He gave a thumbs up to my OP at least.
If they think it would be helpful that I send the DWG an email to the address listed on the link you shared, I’ll do that, but I suspect it might be superfluous.
I (at least) am aware f this thread, but sending an email (with as much information as you can in it) will create a ticket so that it won’t be forgotten.
I’ll do that then. Thank you for clarifying and explaining your preference. It’s appreciated.
Invitation to copy+paste this whole thread as plaintext in an email?
This is of course an unfortunate outcome. But this case has been argued so well that to me there can be no other conclusion than that @harahu has edited the map as correctly as possible. Any user deleting or diminishing that path should be considered at fault and be dealt with accordingly by the DWG.
Finally, this “war” can not be fought on OSM. It has to be dealt with by either the local government or a court.
Sorry I haven’t replied recently but our attention is “somewhat” preoccupied with both Ukraine & now Israel!
I’d agree that what was done looked good, so will try to get to contacting the party concerned.
Although I’m pretty sure you were joking, I can say as a former DWG member, please summarize, and include a link to the discussion. Ideally link specific points to the posts that back up those points.
I’m sure this will be handled either way with multiple DWG members already aware of the thread, but it is much easier to resolve a case when all the facts are clearly presented.
I feel for you. I’ve had a look at what the DWG is currently fighting, and it does not at all look like fun. I deeply appreciate what you are doing and feel somewhat bad for distracting you (all) from that effort.
I realize that this case is disproportionally time-consuming, and I wouldn’t have taken it this far were it not for the potential the case has for setting a precedent one way or the other. In Norway we’ve had prior incidents similar to this one, so actually going though the effort of discussing this matter will hopefully allow us to define some policy for dealing with similar matters in the future. This, in turn, can contribute to streamlining future dispute resolutions.
Once the dust has settled I’ll probably draft such a policy myself, and present it to the community, in order to ensure there’s something to be gained from all of this.
As mentioned before;This discussion cannot be given any weight as it is not possible to discuss on an equal basis for all parties due to restrictions on the forum. Harahu has sent a letter to the municipality for clarification. In the meantime, I suggest removing the path for the time being.
which forum restrictions make some parties unable to communicate?
can you be specific?
Also, you describe it as suggestion but you already removed it in Changeset: 143117847 | OpenStreetMap without waiting for other opinions (that change was since reverted in Changeset: 143118219 | OpenStreetMap )
Unless important new info will arrive: removal of this path should be treated as obvious vandalism and/or trolling. And path restored. See also qwertet blocked by woodpeck | OpenStreetMap and Turid Nordbye blocked by woodpeck | OpenStreetMap
This forum has user levels. This is a spam protection.
New users like you can post a maximum of 1 image.
To reach the next user level, you simply have to read 5 different topics in this forum (you have already reached all other criteria) - then you can also post several pictures.
Again, my apologies for not being on top of this recently.
To make it perfectly clear to everybody involved, the official view of DWG is that this path, should, at this stage, remain as it is currently mapped: Way: 1217059402 | OpenStreetMap : informal=yes, access=unknown, visibility=bad, pending an official verdict as to allowed access.
Until that verdict has been received and shared with the community as a whole, we would ask that no changes be made either to this section, or to Way: 1217092473 | OpenStreetMap .
Any failure to comply with this request will be viewed very seriously.
(Edit to fix links)