There is a national route near me.. it is some 5,000 km long. Not many
walk/ride the entire length.
It is not complete in OSM, nor upto date. But there is a route .. broken in
places ... I think of it as a guide rather than truth.
The survey:date would have to be added to each way of the relation and be
modified to survey:date:releationxxxx=*
Sorry but I'm not doing for the 100s of ways involved ... too much work.
On 20/07/18 07:06, Philip Barnes wrote:
On 19 July 2018 20:57:20 BST, Peter Elderson <[email protected]> wrote:
Just saw https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Asurvey%3Adate
Since survey:date is a documented tag, I will start using it to record
route survey dates.
Not on ways, but on sizeable hikingdare route relations.
A date on a hiking route relation is likely to be meaningless for the reasons
already mentioned by DaveF. That being they will rarely be walked in their
entirety but mappers will do sections here and there.
Using an example of my local long distance route, the Shropshire Way, I have
systematically walked about half of it, so far that has taken over two years.
Which date do I put on the relation?
Phil (trigpoint)
See if I can get fellow mappers and walking route operators to join the
effort.
2018-07-19 18:39 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson <[email protected]>:
Thanks for the warning. Of course it is not the idea to delete
anything
except when proven wrong.
I meant: information from outside sources, such as gpx-trackings,
which
are older then the last completed survey, should not be entered into
OSM.
Also remember that I'm talking about route information, not mapped
physical objects. We're not mapping individual waymarks, but routes
indicated by waymarks. Even if you remove the route relation, nothing
physical is taken from the map.
The survey date is the key data element here, if any kind of
systematic
maintenance to the route relations is setup. Will it take? I don't
know.
We'll see. The check&maintenance system for cycle node network and
walking
node networks (vmarc.be) works like a charm, so I have good hope)
2018-07-19 17:02 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny <[email protected]>:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:22 AM Peter Elderson <[email protected]>
wrote:
The goal of the idea is to tag the date of the last reality check.
The
best thing I have now is the date of the last edit, which most of
the time
results from e.g. a mapper's action (cut or remove) on a way that's
part of
the route relation.
I want to ensure that the route in the field and the route
relation
stay in sync, and when they don't (which is a 100% certainty) that
you can
tell at what point in time it did match.
Information older than that date (e.g. gpx-tracks) can be
discarded,
newer information can be entered, and edits after the survey date
are new
info which should be kept.
Keeping the field survey up to date is a laudable goal, and I've no
objection to some sort of tagging that reports "this geometry was
field surveyed on <date>." Making it fit with the data model will be
challenging; it's not something that can be easily automated, given
the variety of mappers' workflows.In the current world, to make
something like this a reality you have to have an individual or
organization that becomes the de facto 'owner' of the route and
keeps
track of its own surveys - and that isn't very OSMish. I think this
could be worked around with sufficient cleverness.
But please, please, don't discard data older than a certain date.
OSM
is a very young project as geography goes. While out-of-date data
can
be misleading, the right thing to do is to inform, not to delete,
particularly in cases where the out-of-date information is the only
information that is available. It may also be the only information
that can guide in recovering from an act of vandalism or a
badly-considered import.
Perhaps I'm coming at this from the 'wrong' perspective. since a
fair
amount of my mapping is of features that nobody has yet seen fit to
map at all, or that were once imported from external data that I
consider hallucinatory. If someone with a GPS found a route passable
a
decade ago, that's a piece of information that I now have that I
wouldn't have had otherwise. It could be that the route is no longer
passable, has been relocated, or has been demolished, but without
the
old data, what reason do I have even to go and find out?
Moreover, the land remembers. I've been on trips where abandoned
tracks and the grades of dismantled railroads, a century old and now
grown to trees, have been important landmarks. I have no qualms
about
not showing them on a general-purpose map, but to an off-trail
hiker,
they are waymarks for eyes to see that can.
The right thing to do with 'stale' data - perhaps even 'proven
incorrect' data - is to inform, not to discard.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
