Good catch, fixed in

changeset/185171962

This edit has been reverted by changeset/185127356.

changeset/185127356

Please do not mass delete features from OpenStreetmap. Also, do not add random features and use all caps "PRIVATE PROPERTY". Instead you can use legal access tags. If you need help then I recommend asking for help on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

This edit has been reverted by changeset/185127356.

changeset/185127356

Please do not mass delete features from OpenStreetmap. Also, do not add random features and use all caps "PRIVATE PROPERTY". Instead you can use legal access tags. If you need help then I recommend asking for help on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Discussion in

changeset/185118783

Dear EricJMilannn12,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for contributing your first edits.

I noticed that you deleted IMBA mtb difficulty ratings from several trails with the changeset comment that the trails are not designated mtb trails. In OpenStreetMap, a trail's difficulty rating does not imply that the trail is authorized, recommended, or appropriate to use, instead it just notes the trail's difficulty are per the specific rating system. To attribute a trail as unauthorized we use the informal tag with the "yes" value, which all of these trails have. In addition, the portions of these trails within Pinecone Burke Provincial Park are also attributed with the legal access tag bicycle=no and mtb=no because these are not designated cycling trails within the park.

You can read more about the various tags on the OpenStreetMap wiki:

informal=*

bicycle=*

If you have any questions about trail tagging or other OpenStreetMap conventions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you again for joining the project.

Thank you, eerib

Discussion in:

changeset/184951233

Reverted. Please refer to the discussion in:

changeset/184951233

Hello BC Hiker,

I understand the confusion here as it's a bit of a complicated situation.

The problem is that the portion of the dike in this area exists on private land and therefore Metro Vancouver Regional District has created a legal trail/route below the dike on their property. However, very few people actually take the legal trail even though it does exist and is signed.

Here is a photo from 2025 of the Metro Vancouver signage advising users to use the legal trail below the dike.

https://imgur.com/a/6atFYwp

It may be possible that the situation has evolved since by previous review of the situation in this area in 2025 so please disregard if that is the case.

Cheers, eerib

Partially reverted to restore "Chico" trail.

Discussion available in

changeset/184951233

Discussion in

changeset/184951233

Hello boncnaa,

I noticed that you deleted multiple unsanctioned trails (changesets #184951102, #184951233). In OpenStreetMap, a trail's legal or official status is attributed using tags rather than by removing the feature. Unsanctioned or unofficial trails are commonly attributed with `informal=yes` (and other access-related tags where appropriate) so that the map accurately reflects what exists on the ground. The trails in this case had already been marked as unsanctioned.

Please note that this is not the first time this issue has been raised. You were previously advised not to remove unsanctioned trails during the discussions on changesets #180525231 and #180563038. Those discussions explained that the presence or absence of official authorization is not, by itself, a reason to delete a feature that exists on the ground and is verifiable.

The reason OpenStreetMap includes unsanctioned trails is that the project aims to document verifiable, real-world features rather than only those that are officially recognized or maintained. Unsanctioned trails can be valuable information for map users, emergency services, land managers, researchers, and humanitarian efforts. Their presence on the map does not imply that they are authorized, recommended, or appropriate to use - it simply records that they exist. The `informal=yes` tag allows data consumers such as hiking and mountain bike apps to decide how they wish to display or use this information.

For a more detailed explanation of why unsanctioned trails should not be deleted simply because they are unofficial, please see:

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Thank you, eerib

Discussion in changeset/184750911

changeset/184750911

Dear atoine,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for contributing your first edits.

I noticed that you deleted several trails with the changeset comment "unsanctioned trail." In OpenStreetMap, a trail's legal or official status is attributed using tags rather than by removing the feature. Unsanctioned or unofficial trails are commonly attributed with `informal=yes` (and other access-related tags where appropriate) so that the map accurately reflects what exists on the ground. The trails in this case had already been marked as unsanctioned.

The reason OpenStreetMap includes unsanctioned trails is that the project aims to document verifiable, real-world features rather than only those that are officially recognized or maintained. Unsanctioned trails can be valuable information for map users, emergency services, land managers, researchers, and humanitarian efforts. Their presence on the map does not imply that they are authorized, recommended, or appropriate to use - it simply records that they exist. The `informal=yes` tag allows data consumers such as hiking and mountain bike apps to decide how they wish to display or use this information.

You can read more about the rationale here:

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

If you have any questions about tagging unsanctioned trails or other OpenStreetMap conventions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you again for joining the project.

Thank you, eerib

Dear Jennifer Pownall,

Please note that legal access tags like "foot" are legal access tags and a value of "no" should only be used where it is legally prohibited. The roads you have marked with foot=no are legally accessible to foot traffic and are regularly used by those travelling on foot like hikers.

You can learn more about the foot tag on the OpenStreetMap wiki.

foot=*

Thank you, eerib

Hello Pnorman,

The motor_vehicle=no values add value in this circumstance because some trails in this area do allow motor vehicles, such as off-road motorcycles. Mass deleting the motor related legal access tags makes it harder to determine which trails have been surveyed and evaluated for this.

If you feel strongly about this then you can always change the tagging to your personal preference, like switching to using the access=no exception method. Or you can delete the motorcycle=no tags while leaving the motor_vehicle=no tags.

The access=no method would have two main downsides:

1. Some of the most popular outdoor navigation apps will render trails with access=no as "No Access" despite then having other more granular values due to current technology limitations.

2. It creates an exception based system where it's unclear if all exceptions have been documented. This creates unnecessary ambiguity over the more granular approach.

I hope this helps explain my rationale here and make it clear why I am tagging in this manner. Please do let me know if anything is unclear and requires further explanation.

Thank you, eerib

Hello GGD56,

If a trail is on private property, you can mark the legal access of the trail using a legal access tag like:

access=private

This allows users to see that the trail is private and avoid it, ensures that the trail isn't accidentally re-added to OSM without a legal access tag, and ensures the data is there for emergency services that may need to use the trail to respond to an emergency. You can learn more about this topic on the following wiki page:

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Thank you, eerib

Hello all,

Thank you for handling this!

Let me know if anything is needed on my end. I've retained copies of my GPX file and photo/video/audio notes and am happy to share with the DWG or OSMF if a dispute arises.

Thank you again, eerib

Hello thirdoffive,

Looks like the road is severely more overgrown than last time I was in this area. I've added the "abandoned" lifecycle prefix to the road's highway tag and some of the nearby trails (e.g. abandoned:highway=track, abandoned:highway=path). This keeps the underlying geometry of the road, which is preferred because it hasn't been formally deactivated and is planned to be cleared and refused in the future for an adjacent cutblock, while signaling it is not no longer usable and hiding it from view in most navigation applications.

Thank you! eerib

Hello Pnorman,

This was reverted because it appeared to be undiscussed automated edit that mass removed valid access tagging.

You're welcome to contact the Data Working Group for a second opinion.

osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group#Contacts_in_case_of_problems

data@openstreetmap.org

Thank you, eerib

Hello Pnorman,

Just because there is a router assumption does not mean that you delete the data that further clarifies that assumption. For example, this would be similar to deleting oneway=no from all features because the default assumption is no.

Since the edit appears to meet the automated edit definition, in that it's a mass removal of tags identified using an Overpass query and it's not in an area you normally edit in, it would be best practice to discuss the edit on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum prior to the edit.

osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

You're also welcome to contact the Data Working Group for a second opinion.

osm.wiki/Data_Working_Group#Contacts_in_case_of_problems

data@openstreetmap.org

Thank you, eerib