Tracks petition

LINZ paper maps indicating which roads & tracks have public access vs which are private would be my first request. OS manage it on paper in the UK. WAMS do it (untidily) online here. So why cant LINZ? Anything else beyond that would be a bonus.

That's be quite a leap for LINZ, wouldn't it? Current map symbols refer to physical features like roads and walking tours, gates and buildings, often based on what's visible from an aerial photograph. If the Topo50 maps need to include detail about walking tracks and cycle trails and mountain biking trails and and public access, it's sort of shifting from a philosophy of what's there towards telling people what the land is meant to be used for... And then there's handling of public land versus council land versus private land where permission had been given, and maybe any of those could come with extra conditions that could be inconsistent between places and situations (like lambing seasons). The WAMS is awesome, we could probably use more unified systems for all sorts of other access info to unite the data held by authorities, and I like paper maps, but I'm also wondering if it might be more appropriate for someone other than LINZ to be printing maps to order with adjusted layers as they're wanted.

Re paper access maps: LINZ are the land registrar for nz. They hold the definitive record of land ownership, easements & covenants. It's LINZ data that anyone else would use to form their maps. And farming the job off to a 3rd party looses that definitive status. Only LINZ can produce something & declare that it is a true & accurate copy of the land registry data (the 'definitive map' in uk legal terms) that holds legal weight. In the uk if you hold an OS map that shows public access then in law you _have_ public access (on the date of the map). Because the map _is_ the definitive record in law. So no arguments from cockeys 'oh, the map's wrong' ... because the map _is_ the record in law. Linz cadastral maps/data already do that. But not topomaps. That is what only LINZ can do. I dont think paper maps need the full wams treatment of showing _land_ ownership classes. Just a separate symbol for tracks with public access (red/purple dotting/dashing in the OS example compared with black for private). And to use different symbols for private roads to what is used for public roads (private shown as parallel lines with no fill colour in the OS example).

Thanks for the well-informed posts. Exactly the sort of debate that needs to take place. For an understanding of the reasons for my petition, I recommend people to read: • pages 7–22 of Next Priority: The Black Tracks; and • pages 5–13 and 73–79 of Track Symbols on 1:50,000 Printed Topographic Maps. These two documents are available by links on my homepage: Homepage: https://petemcdonald.co/

Track symbol petition – a clarification People may have noticed that the Bavarian map legend included in one of my emails lacks a symbol for a route. At least one person has assumed, wrongly, that I oppose the showing of routes. I hope this confusion is not widespread. I have used the Bavarian example as a starting point for ideas, a model that would need adapting, possibly heavily. I was assuming that in New Zealand a symbol for a route would be necessary. I wrote strongly in support of the showing of routes in my 2011 book Foot-tracks in New Zealand (pages 474–475).

Maps are static but access is a dynamic thing so I would prefer relying on WAMS rather than a paper map for information on what access is currently permitted. I have Freshmap cadastral mapping software but don't rely on that being accurate either. I check with WAMS if I need to know these details.

The second post in this thread (from madpom) bluntly identifies the core of the issue that my petition addresses: the track symbols do not indicate which tracks are public and which are private. The 451 printed NZ Topo50 sheets that cover New Zealand fail to provide this vital information. The third post (from izogi) indicates some of the complexities that lie behind this apparently simple issue: core geographic maps vs recreational maps; orthodox and conventional vs progressive and experimental; design priorities of NZ Topo50 vs design priorities of the Track and Trails map; LINZ's mandated functions vs those of the NZWAC; printed maps vs digital maps; pre-printed vs print on demand; map and compass vs GPS. Yes, as izogi says, the WAMS is awesome. Its Track and Trails map is beginning to show nationally which tracks are open to the public. This online resource is a credit to the GIS professionals involved in developing it, who are working at the forefront of technological change. But let's be honest, it has a long way to go both aesthetically and in completeness. As madpom mentions, the online Track and Trails map at present is cartographically crude (because of the ugly overlaying) and is not available in printed form (unless you print your own). This is not a criticism of anyone involved in the map's development. If my petition succeeds, LINZ cartographers and NZWAC GIS staff or GIS contractors may be asked to thoroughly examine, in a collaborative and determined way, to what extent the complexities could be overcome. I'm not aware of any such scrutiny having been carried out before in a way that is visible to the public. This debate will take place on different levels. The technical side will be well above my level. I'm contributing as a map user. Grassroots walkers and trampers and cyclists have another six months in which to join the discussion – and to sign the petition.

Thanks for the further explanations, @petemcd. Just extending from a @madpom note. > Just a separate symbol for tracks with public access (red/purple dotting/dashing in the OS example compared with black for private). At least on public land I'm struggling with this because I'm unclear about the definition of a track on public land when the land that surrounds it is already legally public access. (Our Conservation Act and National Parks Act barely refer to tracks at all.) Aside from what's on public land, what does NZ have in the way of public access tracks or routes? Paper roads are obvious to me and I'd not object to paper maps showing them more clearly, as well as borders with public land. Maybe easements and covenants, too, if their access rights are firmly held there by law. On paper roads, I expect there would be plenty of protest from certain landowners and various people who've intentionally placed buildings over roads that cross their properties, not that it's an excuse to not do it. The other sort that I know of is public access over private land that's been negotiated in one form or another. The Walking Access Act allows for declaration of walkways over private land, but I'm not sure if this has ever happened since the Act arrived in 2008. There are also other less formally negotiated access arrangements between land owners and DOC or local authorities. To what extent is LINZ in the loop with stuff that DOC and local authorities are arranging? Does it need to be, and can it reliably represent the complexity of many of these arrangements on a paper map?

@izogi Seems quite acheivable to me. 1 - any track on public (crown) land where there is a right if access to the land (identifiable by the 'legal' field in the linz parcel data). This will include tracks on legal roads as legal roads are crown land. 2 - any track which is defined as having public access by a perpetual (forever) covenant (and to my knowledge covenants by default are forever and cannot be terminated without both parties agreeing and are not terminated when land changes hands or has boundaries/landuse redefined) 3 - any track defined as having public access by an easement (perpetual - as (2)) 4 - walkways defined in the walkways act (the walking access legislation which predates WAC) That should get 99% of them. There may be some in local bylaws too - which would need thinking about. Nothing else should be marked - non binding agreements etc.