We section long routes because it is very hard, if not impossible to keep big relations intact. Survey info would be entered on manageable sections.
Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 19 jul. 2018 om 23:41 heeft Warin <[email protected]> het volgende > geschreven: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
