OpenStreetMap
eerib's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 187462831 | Dear Salmonryder, I have reverted changesets 187462831, 187461044 as they were identified as trail vandalism. For example, one trail you deleted (Trail name: CCAA; Way ID: 1456611536) saying it doesn't exist has an active Strava mountain biking segment which has activity data within the last few days. https://www.strava.com/segments/41112128 Please note that you've been warned in the past and given a temporary block after you attempted to mass delete trails falsely claiming they don't exist. Also note that I've also reverted some of your previous trail deletions and have provided a detailed changeset comment showing evidence that the trails still exist and providing you with the relevant wiki page that explains OpenStreetMap policies regarding trails. Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 187455578 | Dear Salmonryder, My two main intensive surveying devices have a total of 14,458 and 4,754 photo, video, and audio notes. These are only notes made with these two main intensive surveying devices and does not include other devices or previous years. An extract of 3 recent survey trips is provided at the following image hosting link. Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 187456333 | Discussion in |
|
| 187444702 | Dear Salmonryder, Provided at the following image hosting link is three photographs taken along the trail construction alignment. The first two photos show sections that were under construction and the third photo shows the construction stake flags marking the intended route of the construction works. Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 187455578 | Dear Salmonryder, I have reverted changesets 187455578, 187455548, 187455413, 187455385, 187455352, 187455275 as they were identified as trail vandalism. For example, one trail you deleted (Trail name: CCAA; Way ID: 1456611536) saying it doesn't exist has an active Strava mountain biking segment which has activity data within the last few days. https://www.strava.com/segments/41112128 Please note that you've been warned in the past and given a temporary block after you attempted to mass delete trails falsely claiming they don't exist. Also note that I've also reverted some of your previous trail deletions and have provided a detailed changeset comment showing evidence that the trails still exist and providing you with the relevant wiki page that explains OpenStreetMap policies regarding trails. Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 187451107 | Discussion in |
|
| 187444702 | Dear Salmonryder, I have reverted changeset #187444702 as it's an improper deletion. The feature is not currently labelled as a trail and instead is labelled as a trail under construction (highway=construction, construction=path) which is consistent with the construction stake flags that mark out the intended route of the trail and the roughed in sections of the trail that I noted when I first added this feature. Please note that you've been warned in the past and given a temporary block after you attempted to mass delete trails falsely claiming they don't exist. Also note that I've also reverted some of your previous trail deletions and have provided a detailed changeset comment showing evidence that the trails still exist and providing you with the relevant wiki page that explains OpenStreetMap policies regarding trails. Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 187416386 | Discussion in |
|
| 187414255 | Dear Salmonryder, I have reverted changesets #187414255, 187414246, 187414241, 187414230 because they're an intentional mass deletion of trails similar to your previous changeset for which your received a warning and temporary block for. The trail running and mountain biking Strava segments for the nearby Neuralyzer trail show that multiple people have utilized the trails this summer. https://www.strava.com/segments/38370512 https://www.strava.com/segments/37842132 I will also note that these trails have also received attempted deletions and erroneous tag changes by another new account associated with mountain bike trail vandalism. You can learn more about OpenStreetMap policies regarding trails on this wiki page. osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F I realize you may disagree with OpenStreetMap policies. The best avenue to address your disagreements is via the OpenStreetMap Community Forum. https://community.openstreetmap.org/ Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 187398937 | Discussion in |
|
| 187363538 | Discussion in |
|
| 186893875 | Dear NathanRib, The bylaw section you cite is specific to authorizing improvements, which is irrelevant to the discussion regarding public access within public parks. Different rating systems use different scales. It's similar to how roads can have speed limits in mph or km/h. Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 186893875 | Dear NathanRib, I have split the trails at the property line using the ParcelMap BC Parcel Fabric from the BC Data Catalogue. For the portion of the unsanctioned trails within Grouse Mountain resorts property (but not managed by District of North Vancouver) I have marked them with access=private. Access=no implies a stronger interdiction than access=private, such as for a road that is officially closed due to significant damage, and is not applicable in this case. I should note that the addition of access=private is being done as a proactive measure as Grouse Mountain broadly allows public use across their property, does not provide guidance on how to handle these unsanctioned mountain bike trails, and has not put up any signage at the trails or trail entrances. The portion of the trails that fall onto the District of North Vancouver's park property would not be marked access=private as they exist on public park land. In addition, they would not be marked access=no (or bicycle=no) without specific official guidance from the District of North Vancouver such as a bylaw provision and official signage that prevents unsanctioned trail use. I have not seen such signage at any of the trailheads and don't believe there is a specific provision in the "Park Regulation, Bylaw 8310" that would apply. The 0-4 values for mtb:scale:imba is only an index that converts to the symbolized values. Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 187210163 | Thank you for the kind comments! You might enjoy this old version of the Metro Vancouver park map. It includes a lot more detail about the river than the newer versions of the park map. |
|
| 187262914 | Discussion in |
|
| 171657410 | Dear Wild Coast, I have confirmed that this cabin has not burned down and have therefore restored it in Changeset #187262914. It appears that this cabin may have been confused with another nearby cabin. I have added additional details to the listing to help distinguish this specific cabin from others in the area and reduce the likelihood of future confusion. Kind regards,
|
|
| 187210163 | Hello Enderbyte99, Just wanted to say thank you for catching this! |
|
| 186840012 | Dear Shinsplints, I would still encourage you to email the Data Working Group, even if you feel that doing so may not lead to your desired outcome. As I mentioned previously, the DWG is made up of volunteers, so I would ask that you please be patient while they review the matter. I would also point out that, if the trail is correctly signed and sufficiently decommissioned, as you indicate, it is unlikely to pose an issue in the interim. Mountain bike users will simply continue down Gargamel. Kind regards, eerib |
|
| 187111989 | Discussion in: |
|
| 187111680 | Hello Shinsplints, I noticed in this edit you removed the mtb:scale:imba rating from the trail, which I have restored in CS#187111989. I am aware that Strava has updated their mapping technology and now displays difficulty ratings (sac_scale, mtb:scale, and mtb:scale:imba) and legal access restrictions. This has resulted in some trails being shown in greater emphasis if they have a difficulty rating. As a result, some accounts have been trying to remove these difficulty ratings, particularly mtb:scale:imba, and add erroneous legal access restrictions. Instead, I would recommend a constructive approach including providing your opinion on the relevant community discussions currently underway. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-improvements-to-mtbimba-documentation/145838 I would also recommend that your group reach out to Strava and ask that they de-emphasize trails marked with informal=yes, similar to how multiple applications that are apart of the OpenStreetMap US Trails Stewardship Initiative have (AllTrails, OnX, Gaia GPS). Kind regards, eerib |