Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?
Hi Joost, Thanks for your comment. For the trail_visibility: According to me, here the tag is fully relevant, the path is indeed sometime not visible, depending on the conditions, and users are mainly walkers, VTT and horses. That matches quite well the definition of trail_visibility:horrible as I understand it, and I could not find an alternative tag that matches better. => Even if the tag in itself is not the solution (not self-sufficient), I consider the tag relevant and I don't catch why it would be tag trolling. Indeed the lifecycle prefixes are more relevant, and solve a big part of the issue. But I'm still not fully convinced, due to the timing. Beyond the fact maps can technically be updated at anytime, I consider that a "validity period" matching both the OSM spirit and the respect of users (as well as device makers) should be something like [1..3] years for items likes tracks/paths/etc. (Target, not absolute truth!) => The disused: and razed: prefixes are clearly made for mid/long-term or one-time situations, not for periodic+cyclic short terms [1..3 months]. => OSM is "real/current state", old data (>2-3 yars) are to be deleted to respect the philosophy. The second point indeed also implies that the real use for disused/razed is limited, since beyond 1-3 years the items would simply be deleted. Good point. So, the lifecycle prefixes solution could indeed be better, also because it can stand this way until someone updates the bypass too. But, according to me, this solution is only usable IF there is a visible and short bypass close around (which is the case of my examples, ok). If not, then it appears there is no more trace, and users will just be annoyed. Also, old GPS devices and devices not designed to support those prefixes will just hide the disused track, which disappears only periodically but could exist the day the user passes. According to me this is negative drawback: As a user I really would prefer to have the choice, and select the one I take according to the real situation the day I pass there. (No matters if the culture was removed the day before, we cant' monitor all these places on a daily basis.) PS: I just tested the disused: prefix to see if it is rendered in some way on the default web layer... It is absolutely not visible, except in edit mode. And I really feel I lost the information I expected to find on the map, as a biker. I ride mostly to discover new paths, and I would have missed this one. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/716828273 NOTE: In Wallonia, the legislation clearly tells that if some culture invades the path, we have to pass on it. Only if it is not possible, we may take any bypass... (Farmers are aware of this.) This is why it's very important that users still pass on the official trace, the bypass may be forbidden at any time. And if the official trace is no more visible, then the path is lost since no more user will make the trace anymore. Ok that's not the problem of OSM strictly speaking but, well, it's intimately related anyway. No path, no map! :-) Regards, François On 8/26/19 9:21 AM, joost schouppe wrote: I do not recommend trail visibility in a case like this. I think it is meant for real, usable trails, that just happen to be hard to see on the ground. To use it in this case, is almost troll tagging. Basically you are saying: there is a path here, but it isn't actually a path. less advanced data-users (i.e. almost any app) will not show it any differently. This is why I would recommend the lifecycle tags. If the official path is still there, but it is just razed by the agricultural works, you can use razed:highway. If remnants of the path are still there, you could use disused:highway. If the situation persists for a longer time, it might be best to delete it all. But as you said above: strictly "mapping what's there" means you should delete and remap a lot of paths a few times every year. This is what creates clutter and makes the data less readable to me! The use of lifecycle tags implies that a data user has to know about this stuff, and hence it is a concious choice, not an accident, to show them to the data user. Osmand for example does this. Which I really like, because I like exploring the woods. It would be relatively easy to make a "switch" for Osmand rendering to show or not show "lifecycle related" stuff. If you're not interested in ruined buildings, future bridges or disappeared paths, you can swithc them all off :) If used reasonably (as in "oh this is weird situation, how should I map it", not "I have an old atlas, let's map ALL of the disappeared paths"), then I don't see how it "clutters" the map. And even where it does, people don't seem to mind much anyway. Check out: https://www.mapcontrib.xyz/t/6d1770-Trage_wegen_als_Note It shows a bunch of ways with no properties except a note="some buurtweg here". I shared it a few times here, and nobody bothered
Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?
I do not recommend trail visibility in a case like this. I think it is meant for real, usable trails, that just happen to be hard to see on the ground. To use it in this case, is almost troll tagging. Basically you are saying: there is a path here, but it isn't actually a path. less advanced data-users (i.e. almost any app) will not show it any differently. This is why I would recommend the lifecycle tags. If the official path is still there, but it is just razed by the agricultural works, you can use razed:highway. If remnants of the path are still there, you could use disused:highway. If the situation persists for a longer time, it might be best to delete it all. But as you said above: strictly "mapping what's there" means you should delete and remap a lot of paths a few times every year. This is what creates clutter and makes the data less readable to me! The use of lifecycle tags implies that a data user has to know about this stuff, and hence it is a concious choice, not an accident, to show them to the data user. Osmand for example does this. Which I really like, because I like exploring the woods. It would be relatively easy to make a "switch" for Osmand rendering to show or not show "lifecycle related" stuff. If you're not interested in ruined buildings, future bridges or disappeared paths, you can swithc them all off :) If used reasonably (as in "oh this is weird situation, how should I map it", not "I have an old atlas, let's map ALL of the disappeared paths"), then I don't see how it "clutters" the map. And even where it does, people don't seem to mind much anyway. Check out: https://www.mapcontrib.xyz/t/6d1770-Trage_wegen_als_Note It shows a bunch of ways with no properties except a note="some buurtweg here". I shared it a few times here, and nobody bothered to delete or fix them... Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 13:57 schreef Francois Gerin : > Thanks for the comments, it confirms that it was relevant to share on this. > > It's already time to share a little more on my own conclusions then. > > @Marc Marc: > Thanks for using option 3. The global/general idea to map only the reality > is good and important, but what appears a contradiction here is not, IMHO. > (See here below.) > PS: You're right for the highway path/footway. I fully agree, and this > what I do in my area. But in the area of the example, another habit is in > place... So I respected it. This is another issue, which is a consequence > of the French translation of the web editor menus, according to me. > Thanks for the comment on the description tag, good point, I'll add it to > the other case. > > @Marc Gemis: > I fully agree with the general rule "map the existing" and was applying it > in these cases too until recently. In fact, this is the reason of my > mail... I extend on this here below. > Thanks for the disused tag, I missed it. It will be useful in some other > cases, but here it cannot apply. (See here below.) > I'm contributing also to balnam, which is an organization that monitors > those paths and footways, which is absolutely not the same purpose as OSM, > and both are very useful, each one in its area. Also, the official > administration in charge of this monitoring is so slow (years!) than the > life cycles with OSM would result in a complete mess. > Also there are several administrations for several purposes, and quite > inefficient in many ways, even if some have real good intents. > > @Tim Couwelier: > Indeed the user's perspective is critical, and this is part of the various > items I integrated in my own analysis of this issue. Thanks for the > confirmation, it also goes in the direction I expected. But this is more > related to the rendering than the data itself. > > > So, since we "agree", a little more from my own conclusions... > > - Yes, I fully consent to the "map the current reality" approach. And in > fact, this is what I was doing before I had to reconsider my way of > thinking and finally change my mind. This rule must be kept as the main > lead. However, like all rules, especially the "global" and "generic" ones, > there are exceptions... And here it is one that, IMHO, requires a specific > attention, so as to document it for the (probably many) contributers who > face this. > > - An important aspect, that is missed by the general rule and fully part > of the exception, is the timing: The path *appears and disappears very > periodically*, according to the cultures on the field... If someone removes > the path from the map, I'll add it again soon after, when the path is back. > This would lead to big frustrations and/or litigations, as well as a lot of > noise in the database... Resulting in a situation that is negative for > everybody. (While having all the data in the DB and rendering properly > would lead to a positive situation fro everybody.) > > - The comment from Tim about the users is particularly important, but it > is more a question of rendering than data in the DB. (That was what I >
Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?
Thanks for the comments, it confirms that it was relevant to share on this. It's already time to share a little more on my own conclusions then. @Marc Marc: Thanks for using option 3. The global/general idea to map only the reality is good and important, but what appears a contradiction here is not, IMHO. (See here below.) PS: You're right for the highway path/footway. I fully agree, and this what I do in my area. But in the area of the example, another habit is in place... So I respected it. This is another issue, which is a consequence of the French translation of the web editor menus, according to me. Thanks for the comment on the description tag, good point, I'll add it to the other case. @Marc Gemis: I fully agree with the general rule "map the existing" and was applying it in these cases too until recently. In fact, this is the reason of my mail... I extend on this here below. Thanks for the disused tag, I missed it. It will be useful in some other cases, but here it cannot apply. (See here below.) I'm contributing also to balnam, which is an organization that monitors those paths and footways, which is absolutely not the same purpose as OSM, and both are very useful, each one in its area. Also, the official administration in charge of this monitoring is so slow (years!) than the life cycles with OSM would result in a complete mess. Also there are several administrations for several purposes, and quite inefficient in many ways, even if some have real good intents. @Tim Couwelier: Indeed the user's perspective is critical, and this is part of the various items I integrated in my own analysis of this issue. Thanks for the confirmation, it also goes in the direction I expected. But this is more related to the rendering than the data itself. So, since we "agree", a little more from my own conclusions... - Yes, I fully consent to the "map the current reality" approach. And in fact, this is what I was doing before I had to reconsider my way of thinking and finally change my mind. This rule must be kept as the main lead. However, like all rules, especially the "global" and "generic" ones, there are exceptions... And here it is one that, IMHO, requires a specific attention, so as to document it for the (probably many) contributers who face this. - An important aspect, that is missed by the general rule and fully part of the exception, is the timing: The path *appears and disappears very periodically*, according to the cultures on the field... If someone removes the path from the map, I'll add it again soon after, when the path is back. This would lead to big frustrations and/or litigations, as well as a lot of noise in the database... Resulting in a situation that is negative for everybody. (While having all the data in the DB and rendering properly would lead to a positive situation fro everybody.) - The comment from Tim about the users is particularly important, but it is more a question of rendering than data in the DB. (That was what I pointed to in my original message, "Side issue" note.) A flag, being trail_visibility or another, makes it possible for cheap, and it satisfies the software development rule "issues must be solved at their root cause". - We prefer not to add yet another tag just for this. The disused tag does not match either, it would change every few months. The trail_visibility much better matches matches the case, even if not perfect... Think of a street closed periodically, here and then, for the time a building (1-4 years) is made in a city. It would be strange to see a tag "trail_*" for a street in a city. => This is just to mention that the notion is wider, I'm not asking for a solution for this case, the solution of the trail_visibility is just fine for me. But if something new has to be made, probably it should be made generic enough to also cover more generic cases. Maybe just adapt the trail_visibility to make it more generic. That's it for now on my side. And I guess sufficient to bring the point to everyone... While waiting for a possible other option/consensus, I'll continue to proceed with solution 3, which is not contradicting the important "map the real state" rule, according to me. It does not contradict because the official way still exists in reality, even if it is sometime hidden for a few weeks/months a year, in a cyclical way. Thanks for your participation and comments. If some have meetings/discussion sessions, I think it would be a good topic... Regards, François On 8/21/19 11:42 AM, Tim Couwelier wrote: I'm with 'second marc' on this one - I chose to map ground truth. In part because that's generally 'how things should be mapped', in part because otherwise we receive criticism from avid users, who are highly annoyed to get stuck / at dead ends because they saw a path on their map and it's nowhere to be found. While I fully support efforts to keep such paths functional /
Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?
Seems my opinion is different from the other Marc. AFAIK, the OSM consensus is to map what is on the ground, in this case only the by-pass. You could keep the "official" path, with some tag disused:highway or so, but IMHO, that is just clutter that makes it harder for others to edit. When your local council does not bother to re-instantiate the official path, it will soon loose that status, not? As far as the removal of the "official" path is concerned, it probably depends on what "official" means. If it is e.g. in the Atlas der Buurtwegen and was not officially removed by the council, you should contact your council and describe the problem. I did that once and the day after, the track was open to the public again. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:59 PM Francois Gerin wrote: > > Hi, > > Here is a probably subjective issue, that has certainly already been > discussed, but I cant' find a search engine for the mailing archives. > > Problem: > It's very frequent, in Belgium and certainly in many places, that a > private or farmer steals a footway because he dislikes people pass there > or just to extend his field for free. > The **official** path is then often no more visible and, sometime, there > may have an **unofficial** by-pass in the area. > The official trace MUST be kept because, well... it is official. :-) > And also because the by-pass MAY disappear at any time. > > Envisioned solutions: > 1. Keep official path only. =bad because it does not reflect the > reality (which may stand for many years!) > 2. Delete the official one, draw the by-pass. =rejected, because the > official must be kept, or we may loose both > 3. Keep both, but flag the hidden one with trail_visibility tag. =best > option found up to now, which seems accepted widely+officially > > Questions: > A. Is there any OSM consensus for a solution, at the global/worldwide > community level? > B. If not, is there any Belgian community consensus? > C. If not, is there any widely accepted option? > D. If not, is there any better solution than option 3? > > (Side issue: the current rendering on OSM does not express that this > path is poorly visible. But at least the flag is there for other > rendering tools/layouts.) > > Two examples I had to do: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700172645 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629096505 > > Thank you in advance for any pointer/doc/wiki/consensus! :-) > > Regards, > François > (aka fgerin on OSM) > (aka fge1 on balnam) > > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?
Hello, I like and use solution 3. but at the global level, somes mappers dislike to map/keep a path that doesn't exist on the ground anymore, despite it's an official one, and thus sometime delete it. the best is probably to contact an association that work for their conservation but I have no idea if they are interested in a very small path and no idea how long it take to get it back. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629096505 highway=footway + bicycle=yes : thus a highway=path ? description is very usefull in this case, it's a good idea to also add it to the previous ex. Regards, Marc ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
[OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?
Hi, Here is a probably subjective issue, that has certainly already been discussed, but I cant' find a search engine for the mailing archives. Problem: It's very frequent, in Belgium and certainly in many places, that a private or farmer steals a footway because he dislikes people pass there or just to extend his field for free. The **official** path is then often no more visible and, sometime, there may have an **unofficial** by-pass in the area. The official trace MUST be kept because, well... it is official. :-) And also because the by-pass MAY disappear at any time. Envisioned solutions: 1. Keep official path only. =bad because it does not reflect the reality (which may stand for many years!) 2. Delete the official one, draw the by-pass. =rejected, because the official must be kept, or we may loose both 3. Keep both, but flag the hidden one with trail_visibility tag. =best option found up to now, which seems accepted widely+officially Questions: A. Is there any OSM consensus for a solution, at the global/worldwide community level? B. If not, is there any Belgian community consensus? C. If not, is there any widely accepted option? D. If not, is there any better solution than option 3? (Side issue: the current rendering on OSM does not express that this path is poorly visible. But at least the flag is there for other rendering tools/layouts.) Two examples I had to do: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700172645 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629096505 Thank you in advance for any pointer/doc/wiki/consensus! :-) Regards, François (aka fgerin on OSM) (aka fge1 on balnam) ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
