Hi SM,

Thank you again for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I genuinely appreciate it, and I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about the issues you raised before deciding how to proceed.

Since our exchange I've looked more broadly at how OpenStreetMap, other mapping communities and mapping applications handle unofficial trails. I've also reflected on the balance between accurate mapping, stewardship, and the legitimate concerns of local riders.

Having done that, I've concluded that I should restore the deleted trails. My view is that established, heavily used social trails that are already publicly discoverable are generally appropriate to map in OSM, provided they are accurately tagged to reflect their status. I recognise that reasonable people disagree with that conclusion, and I don't dismiss the concerns you raised, but on balance I don't think they justify omitting these particular trails from the map. This isn’t a decision I’ve reached lightly. This decision only relates to those established social trails. It shouldn’t be taken as meaning I intend to map every unofficial trail.

Rather than trying to explain all of my reasoning in a changeset discussion, I've written a short statement of the principles I'm trying to apply:

[Mapping Established Social Trails in OpenStreetMap](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YsCaVeX_QWeXSP68_7lUi65mF_kLDmNyjac_ISqaweY/edit?usp=sharing)

It's not intended as a rebuttal to your comments, nor as a statement of how everyone should map. It's simply an explanation of how I've arrived at my decision.

I appreciate the thoughtful way you engaged with this, even though we've reached different conclusions.

Toby Ferguson

Hi SyrupMap,

Following up on my message from 12 June 2026 — I haven't heard back from you regarding the revert of changeset #183998702.

I'm writing to let you know that if I don't hear from you by Saturday June 27th 2026, I intend to re-apply the original edit. I want to be transparent about this rather than acting without notice.

If you have concerns about the edit — tagging, accuracy, local knowledge — I remain genuinely open to discussing them. A collaborative resolution is always preferable.

For reference, the OSM community guidelines on this kind of situation:
• Revert etiquette: osm.wiki/Revert#Etiquette
• Good practice: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_revert_without_discussion
• Dispute resolution: osm.wiki/Dispute_resolution

Hope to hear from you,

Toby H Ferguson

Hi SyrupMap,

I noticed you reverted my changeset without prior contact. I'd like to flag that OSM community norms ask mappers to reach out to the original contributor before reverting their work — both to explain any concerns and to give the mapper a chance to correct, clarify, or discuss.

The relevant guidance is here:
• Revert etiquette: osm.wiki/Revert#Etiquette
• Good practice: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_revert_without_discussion
• Dispute resolution: osm.wiki/Dispute_resolution

I'm happy to discuss the edit — could you let me know what your concern was? If there's a tagging issue, an error, or a local knowledge conflict, I'd rather we work it out collaboratively than through silent reverts.

Thanks for mapping,

Toby H Ferguson

No shit! I guess my previous upload didn’t go and so the two were combined! Whoops!

Steve, thanks very much for your diligence and clarification. I appreciate it. I got a wrong steer on how access=permissive was supposed to be used and I've since clarified that both in these discussions with you and with discussions on the OSM community groups.

My overall goal was to map what's on the ground (which is clearly a lot of illegal trails) and I veered into this access issue. Sorry if I've been a pain in the butt. That was really unfortunate and not my intention. Thank you for your patience.

Toby

Steve,

thanks for your explanation. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you.

My understanding is that the OSM map should reflect what's true on the ground as the first principle. I want to ensure that the map is both accurate to the user’s experience and respectful of the land management’s official policy.

'Implicit permission' means that it isn't written down! The point being that because no attempt is being made to enforce the rules denying permission (over many years, and with many opportunities to do so) then the effect is to give permission. That might well not be the intent of the land owners, but it is the effect.

access=no is too strong (in my opinion - reasonable people might disagree!), and the only next step down is to use access=permissive, informal=yes, and perhaps a note as to what's going on. That seems to me to make a map that really does represent the truth on the ground, while respecting the land owners official policy.

Its a tricky situation but as it stands the map doesn't represent the real truth; it just represents the idealized one from the land owners perspective.

Great. Thanks for responding.

What I hope to achieve is a shared understanding of what the correct access tag should be and to have the map reflect what’s on the ground in a way that is accurate and meaningful. In practical terms I believe the correct access tag value for these trails is ‘permissive’. That’s not to say that the landowner is giving explicit permission (they haven’t) but the implicit permission that is nevertheless being given is reflected in that value. So this would then accurately reflect the truth on the ground, in accordance with OSM guidelines.

Steve,

I'd like to discuss your modification of the tagging (reverting access=permissive to access=no). I've been reviewing the 'map what's on the ground' recommendations by OSM and, from my understanding, access=permissive is exactly what we've got: a landowner that passively accepts what's going on (and has done for many years!) but who still retains the right to revoke the implicit permission this passive acceptance implies.

Hella Fred,

this is another of my change sets that you've deleted. I'd ask that you reverse your deletion so that OSM can reflect the truth on the ground.

Hella Fred,

I understand your concerns regarding this dataset and hence your deletion. However OSM's 'how we map' clearly states that we map what's on the ground and that we don't perform deletions unless we know something is incorrect. Since this data is correct and is what's on the ground I'd ask you to reverse your deletion.