On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> wrote: > Cycle and walking routes get relocated, torn up, fences put across them.
...and there's no way we can keep up with such changes. > Park names? The name that is on the park prevails - quite often > different to other sources. No way. Signage is frequently a low priority from organisations that maintain parks, trails, etc. Just on bike paths, I've seen as many as 3 different names signed for the same route - in addition to names provided on websites or other publications. The name on a sign at the physical site is just one name amongst many. > On the ground doesn't mean we can't use other sources. It just means that > when sources clash, we defer to what is on the ground. This is in contrast > to Wikipedia, for instance, which will use a secondary source to determine > what to include. OSM will always choose what is physically present, on the > ground. It sounds like we don't disagree about very much. I hate these mantras "map what's on the ground" and "don't map for the renderer", because they're apt to be misunderstood and over-applied. But I think essentially there are few instances where our approaches would lead to very different outcomes. > I know. I'm simply saying that where no such human defined route backed up > by cycle facilities on the ground exists, we should include the features > present, not invent a route. And I'm slightly more liberal. > No doubt it is in the map providers interest to make the route appear > connected, even when in reality they may not have made a single change to > the facilities on the ground. However, the reality may be in some case that > there are actually gaps in the route. I see this very much as an edge case, > and I can see arguments for including the connecting segments in an official > named route like this one. Cool. > Adding physical infrastructure is always useful. It never does any harm. Sometimes exhaustively listing every "unofficial" (but "on the ground") walking track in a park can just create messy confusion. But, yes, generally. > Every bad route we add severely diminishes the value of the good ones, and > we see this happening already in Sydney. There is a signed cycle route > heading down Parramatta Rd at Croydon. This is a 3 lane, very narrow laned > road with heavy vehicles and high traffic volumes. If we mark that in OSM > in a cycle route, we may as well give the game away. Here, I disagree. You obviously have an interpretation of what a bike route should be (safe, for starters). But I think if the authorities have decided a bike route goes down a busy road, then we should follow that. If you're seriously arguing against mapping this route, aren't you contradiction your "map what's on the ground" philosophy? Signs are "on the ground". > I've no idea how you allow unofficial routes to be used in moderation. How > do you decide which to keep? How do you decide who gets to decide? One thing I can say: just because you (or I) don't know the answers to questions, doesn't mean something is a bad idea. In any cases, the answers are probably "the community decides, if and when it becomes a problem". > Would OSM really be a better project if we were to do a data import from > bikely? I can't see that going well. > Let's be careful with cycle routes in Australia. Nah. Compared to organised countries like the UK or Germany, we have little infrastructure, no wide-scale consistency, and few published conventions to follow. Until the day comes when there exists something like the LCN/RCN/NCN system, we're going to have to use liberal interpretation to achieve a useful result. > The cycle facilities are > sparse compared to the bicycle signs and council routes. There is no > central coordinating or certifying authority. I'd argue against adding > personal routes, add the physical information for a router instead. Automatic routers are just one audience. Humans are another. Provide route information for humans, and let the computers ignore it. > This information is far more valuable, and as a project it plays to our It's not an either/or situation. > strengths. I'd also argue against adding other routes where no cycle > facilities exist, or the route is dangerous. Particularly where the > information is source from council maps that aren't recently updated, or > from bicycle signs that point off a main road or cycleway. Right. You'd like to use interpretation and subjectivity as well. Steve _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
