How do you usually split things up, when access & use changes, summer vs winter (or more precisely “when there’s enough snow to ski on” vs “everything has thawed, so pack your skis away for the year”! )?
After bringing it up on Discord, then doing some reading, it appears that <access:conditional=private @ summer> + <access:conditional=yes @ snow> may work?, even if they’re more than somewhat unusual!
What to do about all of the piste details that are currently tagged on the tracks though? Just leave them as they are, or should they also be conditionally tagged somehow?
I often use those tags in the Alps, depending on the legal situation. I posted them here just yesterday:
access:offroad=yes@winter → seasonal requirement to stay on the paths in winter
access:offroad:conditional=no @ (Dec 15 - Apr 15) → prescribed requirement to stay on the paths between two dates
access:offroad:conditional=discouraged @ (winter) → prescribed requirement to stay on the paths in winter only
access:conditional=no @ (Mar 15 - Jun 15) → No trespassing from March 15 to June 15
access:conditional=no @ winter → No trespassing in winter
Alternatively, the values snow or ice, which we even use on the highways to reduce maxspeed.
Ideally, the track would be separated from the slope and put into a relation. That’s the cleanest solution in my opinion.
The way in question is only a few hours away from me, but I think @Hungerburg is much closer. How do you treat such a case? Also the piste in a relation? Or two paths on top of each other with same geometry?
Other sections of the relation do have the piste details included: OpenStreetMap, including one bit further up wher it has paralleled the track: OpenStreetMap.
So maybe just draw a new piste alongside this existing track, & transfer all those details across, leaving this bit as a private path? In that case, the access=private would stay by itself, as the piste details would naturally only apply in winter?
Oops, sorry, should have copied @Hungerburg in as well!
Yes, that’s exactly what I would do. That seems to me to be the cleanest solution, but perhaps we should wait and see if @Hungerburg has had any other experiences on Tyrolean soil
I thought you from Australia not Austria DWG involved?
My 2 cents: Track 475949084 mostly crosses a bit of a forest. By Austrian law we may freely roam our woods on foot and it is not easy for landowners to forbid that. But this track crosses two meadows too, so an unconditional access=private might well hold and likely even extends beyond this one mapped entity. BTW: By Austrian law, people on ski are pedestrians.
I guess contractual agreements with the tourism office in place to make that sections available for public Nordic skiing in winter. So adding access:conditional=ski @ winter to the track entity could well be used to unambiguously map that. As a most quick fix.
Personally, I’d say separating the piste fine too. It is a bit of an extra effort but if deemed cleaner likely worth it.
I still think it’s interesting to know if an actual track is groomed for skiing @snow, so not in favor of duplicating ways “because it’s cleaner”. Which is rarely is in an editor anyway.
Also, keep in mind that, as discussed in another thread, piste:difficulty hasn’t the same meaning on ways and relations.
Did you look at the linked track? I bet, the Nordic piste does not run the exact same way as the track, which will be invisible in winter anyway, unless where it goes through the trees from the lack of trees in its area. Apart from being access=private, from looking at the aerial, it is not much of a track neither.
Regarding “cleaner”: In the iD editor, separate ways certainly so, in the sense of more comprehensible. I remember spending an hour or more “cleaning” a local resort of doubly mapped pistes, because an iD user did not notice that the pistes already mapped, as these were – and obviously still are – shown as plain old tracks.
Also curious about different meanings of difficulty, will comment in the other topic.
Which we think says “privat - eingezäunte weide” (private - fenced-in grazing area)? From their comments, electric fences during summer that are then removed for winter.
Cadastral data shows three properties there, but the painting says, both pastures affected, I think @mcliquid will be quicker than I can send my arm chair minions - I’d just prolong the piste coming from NE across the pasture and yank the track from the route relation. and make all three track sections that cross grassland private. The ones SW in the woods I would not touch.
PS: Fenced in summer is quite often to be seen here, not only electric, but in smaller locations also wooden. I am consistently surprised by the amount of work pastures receive here.
“patch of forest is private” – might be so, but legally will not hold regarding access on foot, yet I’d certainly not split the track for this, as there is no other way to get there, but pathless…
Yes, Winter changes OTG truth quite a bit. So the course of e.g. a Skitour a lot depends on whoever goes there first, on Loipe perhaps less so Where in Summer there are 3m high bushes forming a corridor in Winter may look like 30cm heath.
The central section of the track has been marked access=private. Being fenced should be good enough for openstreetmap standards to warrant that? This will prevent routing, no idea if this will stop people walking there.
ski:conditional=yes@winter got added. foot:conditional might be good too, but I do not think walkers welcome/allowed on a Loipe?
Regarding the path on the South end - Strava has no heat at all there, terrain model shows no trace. From history, the user that mapped that certainly did walk there once.
)?
DWG involved?
)