Trails Working Group - Pilot Feedback 2022-2023

Announcment post https://www.openstreetmap.us/2022/05/osmus-trails-wg-pilot

What Did We Learn

• communicating the work can be difficult
• workflow is difficult

Mapping & Other Issues

• workflow can be a little clunky to compare with external data sources
• first pilot misses national park land
• still questions around if what we're doing does what we really need

Suggestions for Round 2

• include national park land
• want to also improve federal line data / make it align
• most questions are on the rendering side for now
• different ecosystems (forest canopy vs desert landscape)
• additional use cases
• trying other tools
• mapping via Public Domain map so data can be used in public domain and we can use authoritative maps as reference layers

Nuances or Observations

• operator - Along with recommended tags, recommendations may be needed for operator values. As we saw during discussions of recommended tags, there are different paradigms in play for operator. Some people thought it meant the name of the group maintaining the trail. That could be an organization or trail club – formal or informal, authorized or not authorized by the land manager. But we're wanting operator to be the name of the land manager, so renderers will check to see if it's set, and if it is they'll know it's an official trail.
  • This is probably not a big issue. Whether it is the managing agency or the club doing the trail mainenance, the presence of a value indicates that the trail is official.
    • Unless unauthorized groups are maintainaing the trails, which is not uncommon and is a huge land management headache. If our overarching goal is to align with land management needs, then focusing the operator tag on the land manager reinforces their authority. Also, as very practical matter, clubs come and go, while land managers remain.
• operator - For federal or other wide-area land managers, there may be need to recommend standard values for operator. For example, do we tag National Forest trails with the name of the National Forest (Pisgah National Forest), or do we tag them with the name of the overarching agency (US Forest Service). Detailed syntax may also be worth specifying. For example, is it to be United States Forest Service, US Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, … One argument in favor of using the over-arching agency rather than a specific management unit is that trails may cross back and forth along the boundary between two management units.
  • We can work towards standardization, but for the purpose of deciding whether a trail is official or not, US Forest Service or United States Forest Service will both work just as well.
• operator=no - Have seen some mappers setting operator=no for unofficial trails. While this makes sense, the problem is that if renderer algorithms determine official trail status simply by checking to see if operator is set, then it will defeat the tag recommendations. Their algorithm will think there's a land manager named "no". Two pronged solution: 1) recommend against operator=no, and 2) recommend renderers to filter out operator=no if they encounter it.
  • This is a problem and we needed to clearly document that this should not be done as it will have the opposite effect as intended.
• highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway - One existing practice is for mappers to set highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway rather than the TWG recommendation of highway=path + foot/bike/horse=designated/yes/no. We'll need to point out the advantages of the TWG recommendation. Consider the greater nuance available via the TWG recommendation, giving more options for expressing land manager policies. Use of foot/bike/horse=designated/yes/no applies equally well to both official and unofficial trails. For example, an unofficial trail doesn't have explicit use designations by the land manager, but certain uses may be allowed because of policies associated with the area in which the unofficial trail is located.
  • This shouldn't be much of a problem. I generally prefer highway=path|track for trails, but highway=footway|cycleway|bridleway are all commonly used as well. Any of those combined with operator=* should be interpreted as an official designated trail, and any of those combined with informal=yes should be interpreted as an informal trail.
    • If our goal is only to distinguish between official and unofficial trails (and that is perhaps the single most important and doable goal), then your assessment may be fine. But if we're trying to cooperate with land managers to the extent practicable, then highway=footway|cycleway|bridleway is too limited.
• highway=track + foot/bike/horse=designated/yes/no - the foot/bike/horse=designated/yes/no recommendation may also work well for forest roads. As with trails, there may be both "official" and "unofficial" roads for which land managers have use policies.
• atv/motorcycle=designated/yes/no - Official ATV trails are common. So are unofficial ATV trails, and these can be a huge problem, potentially far more damaging than unofficial hiking trails. Can we include this in tagging recommendations to address forests/parks where this is a primary use type?

A few of my favorite things

• the growth of stakeholders and folks wanting to get involved

Future Pilot Area Suggestions

• Canyonlands
• Zion
• Arches