OSM note activities of SHARCRASH for the last 12 months
Copyright © Pascal Neis | Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors | More? See ResultMaps | Notes overview worldwide | Autoreload 5:00 min
Overall activities (12 months)
Opened: 0 (0%) Commented: 8 (50%) Closed: 0 (0%) Reopened: 8 (50%)
Stats per month
Latest activities
Latest activities | The colored events are made by SHARCRASH | Limit 500
Note#⏱️ Last updatedEventContributorComment
15475681~ 7 years agoopenedTobyMGNot visited in person, but it doesn't look like these are cycleways. If they are MTB tracks a different tagging (or more detail on surface) is probably appropriate.
2~ 2 years agocommentedPaul Berry
♦2,040		They are downhilling tracks.
3~ 2 years agocommentedSHARCRASHYou should precise the surface for each highway and I think you can combine with leisure=track + sport=mtb like here https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/49.6921/7.1483 See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dtrack Standard OSM Carto will be rendered with a lighter blue starting zoom 16. You can further add to the highways a relation that will deine them as a MTB network. In the relation you add: type=route + route=mtb + sport=mtb + roundtrip=yes or no + name=xxx in order to identify it.
4~ 2 years agocommentedSHARCRASHForgot to mention that the relation route network will be visible in teh layer of Cyclosm https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/49.6986/7.1555&layers=Y
5~ 2 months agoclosedntzm
♦310		The MTB wiki makes no mention of using leisure=track. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking
6~ 2 months agoreopenedntzm
♦310
7~ 2 months agocommentedSHARCRASHHi, The MTB page is just an informative page and work in progress. It's not like a tag page where you clearly need to define what the tag represents and how it should be used. The tag page for leisure=track clearly states that it is for non-motorized sports and precised the description with "cycling" since 2017 or 2018. The MTB page also clearly adds that highway=path or =track are suitable because sometimes portions of the course or entire trails are shared with other type of users in the bike centre or trail network (Bentonville, Pisgah, Whistler...). The combination is therefore acceptable by practical usage, and many examples exist where leisure=track is paired with various highway= values: www.openstreetmap.org/way/596234642 , www.openstreetmap.org/way/596234638 , www.openstreetmap.org/way/562480597 Hence why I proposed the combination, at least there will be a clear difference. Although, I personally have always avoided combining with highway=cycleway (like in our example here), preferring highway=path + bicycle=designated but the rendering will be the same anyway.
8~ 2 months agocommentedntzm
♦310		Thanks, I have looked through various forums and I find it quite frustrating the lack of continuity around how to tag MTB trails. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mountain-bike-downhill-pistes/132329 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-leisure-track-for-mtb-downhill-pistes-was-rfc-piste-type-mtb-downhill/119661 It seems there is no consensus on how these should be tagged. I would be up for taging these as leisure=track if there was examples in well-tagged places such as Germany. However these seem to be tagged as paths with mtb=designated, which I think makes more sense? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1082584654 Would like to hear your further thoughts on this
9~ 2 months agocommentedntzm
♦310		These particular trails are actually not authorised trails, however they are seemingly tolerated by forestry england
10~ 2 months agocommentedntzm
♦310		I have set these to highway=path, mtb=yes, informal=yes. I don't think this is the ideal tagging, seeing as there doesn't seem to be any real consensus as to how to tag these yet, but it is better than it was before.
40652981~ 2 years agoopenedKugelbaum
♦400		In context of "Surfaces" overlay for https://osm.org/way/1027115736 via StreetComplete 56.0: Gone Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/192638.jpg
2~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400		Removed it.
3~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
4~ 2 years agocommentedSHARCRASHThat's a track with grade 5, totally passable between the large passage between trees and over the small grasses. Grasses are natural and grow, any forestry vehicle, horse riders, pedestrians can recognize it and use it. Many examples exist with tracks with small grasses, OSM's Wiki has examples showing grade 5 tracks with grass. Even if the grasses would be higher the way would still be eligible as a track because grasses grow and its natural to grow, they do not block passage. Don't you understand that? Again and again you deleted data which exists!
5~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
6~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
7~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
8~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
9~ 7 months agocommentedkabelhaai
♦2,236		What is the issue?
10~ 7 months agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400		Same issue. Contrary to the reopener (I reckon), I was actually at that location and I couldn't find a way. Closing it.
11~ 7 months agoreopenedSHARCRASH
12~ 7 months agoclosedkabelhaai
♦2,236		Put the path on disused so you can open it once it is cleared again. No need to reopen it without interacting. The path is clearly overgrown as you can see on the photo.
13~ 7 months agoreopenedSHARCRASH
14~ 7 months agocommentedSHARCRASHHi kabelhaai, I'm don't interact anymore with people who lie, it's a waste of time. If you want, we can go on the location together and I will show you that the way still exists. The track on the photo is not overgrown, grass grows and dies depending on several conditions. Anyway for a for a 4 wheeled vehicle the way is usuable. I've been there in March, it still exists. Here is an activity showing I've been on location https://www.komoot.com/tour/2084058261?share_token=aDEbUx41TtC5bNtw31BQSaNbdh9C5mB3OP5h37s7Xdmo3miVT8&ref=wtd
15~ 7 months agocommentedkabelhaai
♦2,236		Feel free to add more photos, or show a heatmap of some sorts and add it again if it actually exists.
16~ 7 months agocommentedSHARCRASHhttps://ibb.co/XfMwsxcD
17~ 7 months agocommentedKugelbaum
♦400		That heat on the northern "path" is nothing, especially with the much higher heat next to it. From my experience there needs to be a lot more heat to be sure there really is a path. My explanation for this situation here, is a problem on the ground. There seem to MTB folks who create trails from time to time and there is a reason why somebody has put sticks there. Do we need to map these trails that aren't available all the time and maybe even without the go from the forest owner? I don't think so.
18~ 7 months agocommentedkabelhaai
♦2,236		Starcrash, how old is the heatmap data of the northern path? It could be 2y right? Sticks where?
19~ 7 months agocommentedkabelhaai
♦2,236		I can see the sticks on other photos. Cant we simply map it as a track in pad state or almost not visible? There was a path and now it seems blocked. The "private" argument does not matter as we can put it on access=private. We map paths and houses on private property all the time.
40652961~ 2 years agoopenedKugelbaum
♦400		In context of "Surfaces" overlay for https://osm.org/way/1027125127 via StreetComplete 56.0: Just some illegal path residues through private forest. Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/192636.jpg
2~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400		Removed it.
3~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
4~ 2 years agocommentedSHARCRASHYou deleted a portion of a way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1239441067 going NE of this note and visible on your photo. Someone used it only 4 days before you deleted it https://www.strava.com/activities/10526379143 and others using it in 2023 https://www.strava.com/activities/9038368641 , https://www.strava.com/activities/9038199083 Again you delete data which exists! Dare I say, you possibly put branches on terrain to make it look like it hasn't been used for ages but as i've shown here someone passed only 4 days ago before you delete it and several others within 2023.
5~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
6~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
7~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
8~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
9~ 7 months agocommentedkabelhaai
♦2,236		 What is the issue?
10~ 7 months agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400		I'm closing it. I was there, no usable path. It even looks like a fed up forest owner put signs so people won't look for paths which aren't there.
11~ 7 months agoreopenedSHARCRASH
12~ 7 months agoclosedkabelhaai
♦2,236		Overgrown. Put it on disused: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4065298
13~ 7 months agoreopenedSHARCRASH
14~ 7 months agocommentedSHARCRASH@kabelhaai, as I said on the other note, on the activity here below, for this path/trail i've been able to join the other one visible with the GPS tracking and there are no signs. https://www.komoot.com/tour/2084058261?share_token=aDEbUx41TtC5bNtw31BQSaNbdh9C5mB3OP5h37s7Xdmo3miVT8&ref=wtd Also I suggest you to not beileve blindly what this other person posts. If you are near the location, please make a survey, and confirm here that Kugelbaum is wrong. Another example is on this where he potsed a misplaced photo. I had been there again and filmed from his misleading location to the actual bridge he had delted: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4011865
15~ 7 months agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
16~ 7 months agoreopenedSHARCRASH
17~ 7 months agocommentedkabelhaai
♦2,236		Show heatmaps please. Irrefutable evidence.
18~ 7 months agocommentedSHARCRASHhttps://ibb.co/XfMwsxcD
40652921~ 2 years agoopenedKugelbaum
♦400		In context of "Surfaces" overlay for https://osm.org/way/1014629003 via StreetComplete 56.0: Where path steep downhill? Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/192632.jpg
2~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400		Removed it. Looks like there were some illegal MTB trails in that private forest years ago.
3~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
4~ 2 years agocommentedSHARCRASHYour interpretations about "illegal" are based on ZERO FACTS! Again an attempt on misinformation! There is a local yearly official trail running and mountain bike course called "Trail des 7 bosses" and exceptionally there might be authorizations for those courses which might also change yearly or even constant permissive passage.
5~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
6~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
7~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
8~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
9~ 1 year agocommentedThierry1030
♦6,126		mapped as abandoned highway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1290771308 is this ok now?
10~ 7 months agocommentedSHARCRASHHi Thierry1030 Here is are 2 activites showing that I could take that path: 2025 May 13 https://www.komoot.com/tour/2240925309?share_token=agjXii0BzpLJrQHRNtLuoUvaItPgX5JPVOVArIiNdndJFQdz9x&ref=wtd 2025 March 6 https://www.komoot.com/tour/2084058261?share_token=aDEbUx41TtC5bNtw31BQSaNbdh9C5mB3OP5h37s7Xdmo3miVT8&ref=wtd
11~ 7 months agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
12~ 7 months agoreopenedSHARCRASH
40118651~ 2 years agoopenedKugelbaum
♦400		In context of "Surfaces" overlay for https://osm.org/way/826280950 via StreetComplete 55.1: No bridge. Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/188132.jpg
2~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400		removed it all as nothing visible
3~ 2 years agoreopenedM!dgard
♦466
4~ 2 years agocommentedM!dgard
♦466		Hi! The structure that's visible in the photo is a weir, used for water control. It's not the ruins of a bridge. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dweir In fact, I have been shown a video showing that the bridge still exists a bit further, possibly at the location it was mapped.
5~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400		Hi. There was a wooden plank over the stream further east, but it only leads into impassable vegetation. No way on that side of the stream anymore. 10 years ago it was already full of weeds. That structure might have been a weir in the past, now it's just a pile of stones.
6~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
7~ 2 years agocommentedSHARCRASH Kugelbaum AKA ex tomolobla, ex Capslock_Cleaner, ex Digital-circle, ex ltwo and your sock-puppets grauwutayette, eyasonu, etc… First you say “no bridge” and then contradict yourself admitting there is a “plank”, conveniently worded so to mislead others, structure visible in the video here below. Obviously, you misplaced the photo shot of your note since you know there is a bridge, that’s a deceptive attitude. Then you say “No way on that side of the stream”, though I’ve been able to cross it and continue over 2 steps and then for several meters leading to an intersection in Y, clearly passable. Just a pity I didn’t have the time to continue for the beauty of the evidence. I won’t accept this as an excuse of an innocent mistake. It’s clearly intended to mislead, just like you’ve done in your past mass deletions (and I saved for later). Your original misplaced photo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rAg3HBfiprj6Q65yOX2sfReB6oAaL3r1 My video proving your false contributions and deceptive photo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A5muUKDnCzw9YcHVyKRaOn_-KWrf-Q71
8~ 2 years agocommentedSHARCRASHClear photo of the bridge, not a plank at all, recognizable with the 2 steps on the other side https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qdDT1nW9HE8FKsEKFUvuuij3n55Aupnh
9~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
10~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
11~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
12~ 2 years agoreopenedSHARCRASH
13~ 2 years agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400		Fixed my mistake, added the plank back. Walked on the other side, there was walkable weeds for a few meters and then unwalkable. The other end's bridge is damaged as showed my photo and noted by someone else on the removed ways.
14~ 7 months agoreopenedSHARCRASH
15~ 7 months agocommentedSHARCRASHActually nothing has been fixed. How the features have been mapped are not representative of how they are in reality and the data is not the original one with its history edits.
16~ 7 months agoclosedKugelbaum
♦400
17~ 7 months agoreopenedSHARCRASH
37718831~ 2 years agoopened---Fort de Fermont Le fort n'est pas situé au bon endroit, sur votre carte
2~ 2 years agocommentedSyl
♦41,176		Bonjour, pouvez-vous donner plus de détails ? Où est-il actuellement et où devrait-il être ?
3~ 2 years agocommentedSacha Lyoubovin
♦24		Il s'agit d'un complexe de plusieurs forts? J'identifie un emplacement plus au sud de la D174... N'est-ce pas une deuxième partie du "Fort"? Perplexe, tout comme Syl...
4~ 10 months agocommentedSHARCRASHOui il s'agit d'un ensemble de bunkers, casemates, etc. Ce n'est pas qu'au sud de cette note, à coté du parking, comme suggéré. Là se trouvent l'entrée principale, le musée... Pour bien faire, il faudrait englober les structures dans une relation et enlever ou convertir la "zone militaire" car il n'y a plus d'activité militaire, c'est juste un lieu touristique.