Talk:Why can't I delete this trail?

Background

The idea for this page grew out of a discussion on the OSM US Slack about an unproductive conversation on a note. The note was left by a concerned citizen asking for an informal trail to be removed. When community members asked for more information to improve the trail tagging, the note's author got frustrated that the trail wasn't simply deleted and left the conversation. This is not an uncommon pattern for interaction between OSM community outsiders and insiders around informal trails that may be dangerous to hikers who don't realize the trail is informal and may assume it is built to the same standards as a formal trail, and/or having deleterious effects on natural resources.

The goal for this page is to present a succinct summary of OSM's policies around informal trails and their reasoning, especially the recent work in the Trail Access Project. It should not assume the reader has any prior knowledge about OSM or its policies, nor that they have read any other page on the wiki, nor that the reader wishes to engage with OSM beyond a particular trail or set of trails they are concerned about. The target audience is concerned that a trail poses a threat to users and/or the landscape, and this page should help them reach a solution mutually satisfactory to them and to the OSM community, as frictionlessly as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dericke (talk • contribs) 14 November 2023

Lifecycle tags

Would it be useful add a link to the lifecyle prefix page? It seems like an advanced topic for a non-OSM'er but also quite useful for these situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumbanho (talk • contribs) 15 November 2023

Indeed this is what we currently recommend in our Australian Tagging Guidelines. While not appropriate for all situations, there are many circumstances where we should consider the trail abandoned or disused (even if still occasionally used illegally). It has the benefit of removing it from visibility of most maps while still retaining and recording the data in OSM, so in my opinion this is usually the best outcome. --Aharvey (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Trails for motorized vehicles

Would you mind if I added a couple of small things to make the page useful for trails for motorized vehicles (e.g., motorcycles, ATVs, OHVs, 4x4s)? The sac_scale=* is great for hiking, but smoothness=* and tracktype=* are better indicators for motorized vehicles. Also, I agree with the suggestion to reference lifecycle prefixes. Adding the disused:, abandoned:, or demolished: prefix is a great way to show that the trail is no longer in use even though there may be visible remnants on the ground. It's a bigger can of worms, but it might also be good to mention conditional access for different modes of travel since trails can be open for certain uses but closed to others. --B1tw153 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Other reasons for deletions of objects

Currently this page says that only fictional objects should be deleted. Especially for land managers it would be helpful to also say that trails which have been completely removed and/or are fully overgrown can also be safely removed or at least retagged with a lifecycle prefix, and that removing a trail IRL is the best way to also get it removed from OSM. --501ghost (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)