# 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 -
Last changed by  
 
Maggie
300

Read more

Scope of Work - Background

[ ] LCCWG Moderation Subcommittee Scope of Work Proposal This proposal was developed by OpenStreetMap volunteers who came together to define the work to be completed by the Moderation Subcommittee, a sub-group of the Local Chapters and Communities Working Group (LCCWG). Learn more about other focus items of the LCCWG here. The OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF) Board set out to "find partners to help instate a moderator team for the OSMF-talk and talk mailing lists". In their December 2020 meeting, the OSMF Board requested that the LCCWG take the lead on this initiative and subsequently this group has been formed. This group of volunteers is not the moderation team that the Board has asked for, instead we have committed to help set it up. We wholeheartedly agree with the Board that when established "these moderators need to have the trust of the community". As such we kindly ask for feedback on today's proposals as this is how we will ensure we are on the right path. The kind support of a few initial volunteers has enabled us to have a proposal ready for review, but we will continue to need support and hope to include representation from all parts of the OSM community. Please reach out if you are interested in being involved with this work.

4/19/2024
2022 - Virtual Local Chapters & Communities Congress

Program Link https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Local_Chapters_Congress/2022 Adding yourself You can edit the page by pressing the little pen symbol in the upper left corner. Attendees (please sign in) Maggie Cawley, OSM US & LCCWG Jonathan Beliën, OSM Belgium & LCCWG Joost Schouppe, OSM Belgium & LCCWG

11/12/2022
Etiquette Guidelines Public Discussion

September 4, 2021 Attendees Heather Leson Amanda McCann Mikko Tamura 2 others that did not identify here Agenda Discussion on the Etiquette Guidelines Revision

11/10/2021
Implementation Plan Proposed by the LCCWG Moderation Subcommittee

This Implementation Plan is based on the subcommittee Scope of Work that was presented to the community at the January OSMF meeting. It has been split into two distinct elements. We plan to progress the ‘Process for moderation’ and ‘Revision of the Etiquette Guideline’ work in parallel subject to enough volunteer support. Our goal is to complete all work by the end of July 2021. This estimate is based on time required to allow for thorough research, bi-monthly subcommittee meetings, community consultation and feedback, and OSMF board review. These efforts have been defined separately below. Community Involvement We want to balance visibility against the feeling of exhaustion from being copied in too many messages or asked too many questions. We therefore created four groups that will be consulted and involved in the process to a different degree than the others. Participation will be defined as part of the workflow set out below. Subcommittee: Join the subcommittee to attend bi-monthly meetings, develop draft documents, respond to comments and drive the process. Reviewer: Provide the Subcommittee with early, timely input on initial draft materials. We invite the Review Group to include the OSMF Working Groups, OSMF Local Chapters and other established communities, in addition to self-nominated individuals. Community: Individuals interested in being notified when final drafts are ready for community input. Everyone who wants to provide feedback will be considered part of this group, but if you want an email when a draft is ready please sign up and let us know.

9/8/2021
Read more from Maggie
Published on HackMD