Thailand national parks proposed motor_vehicle tagging framework for tracks

[julcnx]

Hi everyone,

I have been mapping trails in Northern Thailand national parks and want to propose a motor_vehicle tagging framework for highway=track inside DNP-managed protected area boundaries that could apply consistently across Thailand. Seeking community input before applying it more broadly.

Scope: DNP area types

This proposal covers all four DNP-managed designations:

Area type	protect_class	Governing act
National Park	2	National Park Act B.E. 2562
Wildlife Sanctuary	1	Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act B.E. 2562
Forest Park	3	National Park Act B.E. 2562
Non-Hunting Area	4	National Park Act B.E. 2562

Wildlife Sanctuaries are governed by a separate act with a stricter access regime (see below). Forest Parks and Non-Hunting Areas follow the same case framework as National Parks but, absent documented enforcement, default to Case 3.

Why this matters now

Off-road routing apps powered by AI and OSM data are proliferating fast. I came across two new ones in the last three weeks routing off-road motorcycles onto tracks inside Thai national parks. As LLM-assisted development lowers the barrier to building these tools, missing or incorrect access tags increasingly translate into illegal routings. Doi Suthep-Pui National Park had documented prosecutions targeting enduro riders in late 2025. This is not a regional issue: the same apps operate nationwide and the same legal framework applies to all Thai national parks.

Legal background

The NPA B.E. 2562 (2019) is the current authority: Section 19(1) prohibits ecosystem deterioration, Section 19(6) prohibits unauthorized entry for benefit-seeking activity, Section 47 is the enforcement mechanism. The predecessor NPA B.E. 2504 (1961) had a more explicit vehicle prohibition in Section 16(9), still cited on many existing park signs. Sections 64-65 of the 2019 Act recognize pre-existing community agricultural use as a legally distinct category with authorized motor access.

All Acts verified against primary sources linked below.

Proposed framework

Case 1: Documented enforcement or known prohibition signs (e.g. Doi Suthep-Pui, Mae Wang NPs)

Thai park signs are placed inconsistently; absence at a specific way does not indicate access is permitted. motor_vehicle=no applies park-wide on undesignated tracks for parks with documented enforcement.

highway=track
motor_vehicle=no
source:motor_vehicle=National Park Act B.E. 2562 (2019) Section 19(1)
note:motor_vehicle=Inside [park] NP; enforcement documented / prohibition signs present

Add bicycle=no only where a sign directly observed at that way explicitly depicts bicycles.

Case 2: Pre-existing community farm tracks

Tracks serving communities whose farms or settlements predate the park declaration, found across Thailand in parks such as Kaeng Krachan, Doi Inthanon, and many others. Identifiable by visible maintenance, working vehicle use, agricultural land at terminus, no prohibition signs.

highway=track
motor_vehicle=private
source:motor_vehicle=National Park Act B.E. 2562 (2019) Section 64-65
note:motor_vehicle=Inside [park] NP; pre-existing agricultural access; no public motor vehicle access

Case 3: No documented enforcement or prohibition

Motorized use tolerated by DNP without formal authorization. Revocable at any time as demonstrated by Doi Suthep-Pui.

highway=track
surface=dirt
smoothness=very_bad
tracktype=grade3
motor_vehicle=permissive
note:motor_vehicle=Inside [park] NP; motorized access tolerated but not formally authorized

Physical tags remain important as most routing engines treat permissive as effectively open.

Case 4: Wildlife Sanctuary (protect_class=1)

Section 53 of the Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act B.E. 2562 prohibits entry without a permit from a competent official, which is stricter than the NPA. Apply Cases 1-3 as above with the source citation adjusted:

source:motor_vehicle=Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act B.E. 2562 Section 53
note:motor_vehicle=Inside [sanctuary] Wildlife Sanctuary; entry requires official permit

Pre-existing community access under the equivalent of Sections 64-65 may apply where settlements predate the sanctuary declaration; treat as Case 2 with source adjusted accordingly. Such cases are rare but documented.

highway=path

No intervention needed on untagged paths since highway=path implies no motorcycle access by default. I am proposing to audit and remove unsupported motorcycle=yes tags on both highway=path and highway=track inside park boundaries. An affirmative yes requires positive justification; de facto tolerance does not qualify.

Out of scope

National reserved forest (ป่าสงวนแห่งชาติ) is excluded. The Reserved Forest Act B.E. 2507 (1964) contains no transit access prohibition so descriptive-only tagging applies regardless of use patterns.

Questions

1. Is park-wide motor_vehicle=no acceptable for parks with documented enforcement but inconsistent signage, or should it be limited to ways with directly observed signs?

2. Is motor_vehicle=private the right tag for pre-existing community agricultural access?

3. Is motor_vehicle=permissive appropriate for de facto tolerated access with no formal authorization?

4. Any objections to removing unsupported motorcycle=yes tags park-wide with changeset comments referencing this discussion?

5. Anyone with direct knowledge of DNP’s formal trail designation process for any Thai national park?

6. Are there documented cases of pre-existing community agricultural access inside Wildlife Sanctuaries that would warrant a Case 2 treatment under the Wild Animal Conservation Act?

Primary sources (English translations, unofficial)

• National Park Act B.E. 2562 (2019)

• National Park Act B.E. 2504 (1961)

• Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019)

• Community Forest Act B.E. 2562 (2019)

• National Reserved Forests Act B.E. 2507 (1964)

Happy to share further context.

---

Note: proposal updated May 13 to expand scope to all DNP area types; add Wildlife Sanctuary case with WACPA B.E. 2562 s.53

[Nithinat_S (Nithinat)]

This is a really challenging subject, in my opinion, because the boundaries of the national park are vast and frequently clash with some pre-existing agricultural and settlement area, or in the (lengthy) process of jurisdiction whether who comes first.

The National Park Act is not something I would apply to the entire park. The circumstances on the ground would determine this. Strict adherence to the DNP’s regulations is acceptable in the core area which is completely under their control. I believe we are able to discern the situation on the ground, but this is an enormous undertaking that cannot be automated.

If the track can be reached without passing private path, and no any prohibit sign, and it reaches some land use that is not related to DNP, it might be safe to be permissive. If it’s just for inside forest, no is fine.

For pre-existing community agricultural area, if that’s inside national park, then there will be no title deed and real land rights, thus permissive might be a safe choice if it appears to be a path that can be used to get elsewhere.

motorcycle=yes removal should be handled carefully and shouldn’t be automated.

Sorry to say that this issue is difficult since the situation on ground involve many conflicting of land owner, path use, permission, etc. By the way, a batch process for some of them would be acceptable if you discovered that the existing map is roughly mapped without adequate verification.

Furthermore, there are various types of areas under DNP (I think I used to list it somewhere in the wiki but can’t find now):

• National Park (protect_class=2)
• Wildlife Sanctuary (protect_class=1)
• Forest Park (protect_class=3)
• Non-Hunting Area (protect_class=4)

Conflicting area and path use is probably the same scenario, and it could be a good idea to include them all in this proposal.

[julcnx]

@Nithinat_S

Strict adherence to the DNP’s regulations is acceptable in the core area which is completely under their control.

What do you mean by “core area”: DNP’s official zoning (เขตอนุรักษ์ vs เขตบริการ), or a practical judgment? Zone boundaries are rarely mapped in OSM, which makes this hard to apply consistently.

@Nithinat_S

If the track can be reached without passing private path…

Could you clarify “private path”? A locked gate, titled land? In villages predating the park, most community paths could qualify, making the criterion circular.

@Nithinat_S

motorcycle=yes removal should be handled carefully and shouldn’t be automated.

Agreed on case-by-case review. The concern is specifically motorcycle=yes on highway=path: paths degrade far faster than tracks under motorized use, and recreational motorcycles cause damage and noise on hiking or informal trails. An unsupported tag also gives DNP grounds to formalize a ban under NPA B.E. 2562 Section 19(1), acts “causing deterioration of natural conditions,” and NPA B.E. 2504 Section 16(9), vehicles on non-designated roads. That formal ban then also suppresses community access protected under Sections 64-65.

@Nithinat_S

…no title deed and real land rights, thus permissive might be a safe choice.

permissive implies public access at the owner’s tolerance. motor_vehicle=private is more precise: Sections 64-65 authorize specific parties, not the general public. We’re tagging access rights, not land ownership.

@Nithinat_S

[DNP area types]

Wildlife Sanctuaries fall under a separate act, the Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act B.E. 2562. Section 53 prohibits entry without a competent official’s permit entirely, stricter than the NPA, so the same framework applies with the source citation adjusted. Forest Parks and Non-Hunting Areas default to Case 3 absent documented enforcement.

[Nithinat_S (Nithinat)]

Good research. To clarify my point:

@julcnx

What do you mean by “core area”: DNP’s official zoning (เขตอนุรักษ์ vs เขตบริการ), or a practical judgment? Zone boundaries are rarely mapped in OSM, which makes this hard to apply consistently.

I mean by roughly area that is clearly managed by the DNP and no other people create the path to use for another purpose. This is just for the idea whether I’m sure setting it no is good. For where it’s ambiguous, this task also ambiguous.

@julcnx

Could you clarify “private path”? A locked gate, titled land? In villages predating the park, most community paths could qualify, making the criterion circular.

I mean where it is tagged private. But specifically if that has to be revised too, where it locked or signposted prohibition, or obviously owned by one that is not DNP.

@julcnx

Sections 64-65 authorize specific parties, not the general public.

Agree on that, but for real situation, I think maybe there is some case that the community track might be usable or normally use without obvious prohibition. I might be wrong because I’m not familiar with this kind of path.

For Wildlife Sanctuaries, it generally stricter and usually be prohibited at the gate, but there are also some preexisted settlements too that maybe public can reached by some path. Though it might be rare.

Your proposal is useful for general concept. It might be some exception, as usual.