There is a hiking path that is marked as "access=no"; however, this path is actually very popular, and I often find large groups of people traveling along it. I find no warning signs there. So, by the principle of verifiability, should I remove the "access=no" tag? I felt unsure about it, so I did an investigation, with these observations:
So what should I do now? "Verifiability" basically says "no signs in the field => access is allowed". However, if it was closed in 2010 for "forest recovery", maybe it's meant to be still closed (5 years were clearly not enough for recovery)? Also, when people enjoy these trails, they would have to go out of their way to find out whether access is allowed (I, for one, don't know). Should I have bothered with investigation at all, or just remove the access tags? asked 21 May '16, 09:42 anatolyg |
If there are no signs on the path and there is no local law that forbids to use this way then there is clearly no reason to tag it as access=no. Nevertheless you could try to contact the user(s) that added access=no and ask for the reasons. answered 21 May '16, 09:56 scai ♦ |
Hi Anatolyg, next to scai's remark, try to get in touch with the owner or operator of the forest and ask it there. answered 21 May '16, 12:15 Hendrikklaas |