On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:00:32 +0100, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 19:43, s8evq <s8...@runbox.com> wrote: > > > [1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in order > > to map it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a named hiking route > > is sufficient to be mapped] > > > > Does it have to be signposted as a walking route? In my opinion yes. It's an objective fact, visible on the ground, and can be verified. Let's put it otherwise: "Besides signs and trail markers, what other facts or properties of the route would you consider sufficient in order to map the route"? One example: My running club has also a group of people who go on a walk together, every Wednesday. They have been doing the same 5km route for the last 7 or 8 years. Should that be mapped? It's not indicated, not written down, just common knowledge among club members. My feeling tells me something like that shouldn't be in OSM. Another example: there are lot's of walks in small nature reserves in my region. They are published online, as a PDF containing a small map of the nature reserve. The routes are also indicated on an information board with a map. (for example https://www.westtoer.be/sites/westtoer_2015/files/styles/route_main_image_desktop/public/win_synced_photos/natuurpunt_wandelingen_damme-52909-0.jpg) Would you map this? ...And then there's also copyright restrictions to consider. > > [4] [ I would like to add this sentence: "If possible, sort the ways in a > > logical order"] > > > > I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure "logical" clarifies > anything. The > explanation at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters > manages without it. Thanks for pointing out that link. I'll use it in the text and adjust the current text. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging