On 2014-07-03 21:20, Stijn Rombauts wrote :

Nice to meet you.
Hi,

Decent documentation is certainly useful, but some remarks:
- Everywhere else on that page route=foot is mentioned in the tagging examples. I don't care whether foot or hiking is chosen, but it should be everywhere the same.
Following OSM practices: route=hiking: 49K route=foot: 23K, so I'd go for increasing hiking.
Random picking in Wallonia is balanced, contagiously.
Would you all mind changing the wiki page to hiking?
But please don't change other contributors' tagging needlessly. Suggest.
- ref: If a hiking route has a reference number 33 on the official map and on the official website, my opinion is that that number should be chosen as reference, not some number in that inventaire of the Commissariat général au Tourisme. Another example is Saint-Ode which uses references A1 - A7 etc. which are again much more useful than the numbers on the inventaire. And for some communties/SI's the hiking routes in the inventaire have no name, so it's impossible to know which hiking route one finds on the field or on the map has which number in the inventaire.
In principle, we should disregard law-breakers and not be accomplices.
The problem is that 33 is not official at all and, with possibly several 33, not even a reference number.
Just as if everyone chose his car plate number and were surprised to receive other persons' fines.
The problem is that when the CGT writes to the municipalities, only half reply.
In the case TE10 is referred locally as 30, getting them disciplined would be never ending doing their job.
A compromise would be to pick TE from CGT and 30 from local and make it TE30.
But that would be yet another ugly system.
The best, regular way I see is, because they don't care for a reference number and only we and the CGT do, is to use their ID in the name (or posts) as they do
TE10=30 Chicheux (as displayed on their site) and
SOD05=Moulin des 3 ponts A4 (as in their listings and on the CGT itself)
- name: I prefer to use a name as a name, not a combination of reference and name, or a combination of reference and community and name.
As I said, let's call them as they call them.
Ben:
What's Wikiloc, and why would it need to be in the ref tag? Are these wikiloc
routes signed at all?
Just click and read "1,053,692 members ... sharing 2,218,542 trails" (1G can't be wrong ;-) )
It is a great source of often quality tracks, firstly to provide missing signed ones...
- wikiloc: The first line on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Walking_Routes says: "Mapping of walking and/or biking routes must be restricted to routes signposted by an official tourism agency that is assigning the node numbers, if any, and writing them to the signs". So, apparently personal hiking routes which are not signposted shouldn't be added to OSM...
OK, but does that really mean that in regions where no one cares to signpost hikes and where those WL people find very nice ones, OSM would be forbidden to do what they're allowed to do?
Avoiding overcrowding areas where already enough hikes exist should be a better OSM.be rule IMHO.
- osmc:symbol: perhaps you could refer to http://www.waymarkedtrails.org/en/help/rendering/osmc?
Good idea, but that's a howto.
What I has in mind is a hint where to find the symbol of certain hikes. See below...
- colour=* could also be a useful tag
Maybe, but what does it do? As often, Key:colour  is gibberish.  "indicate the official color associated with the object" is nonsense to me.

Here is below (Below is here) ;-)
How in Wallonia, with only 4 plain color icons as I can see since 2007, can we distinguish hikes by icon?
I know the Four color theorem, but I'd bet they don't and it's irrelevant ;-)
I have filed Waymarked issue 190 suggesting that the map could display both icon and ID/ref.
Isn't it particularly appropriate in this case?
Your opinion?

Cheers,

André.


Regards,

StijnRR




From: Ben Laenen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-be] Wallonia hiking route schema

On Thursday 03 July 2014 18:28:10 André Pirard wrote:
> In Wallonia hikes, StijnRR <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/StijnRR>
> was removing without any notification ref=ID, changing route=hiking to
> =foot, removing the ID from name= ...
> As the documentation was virtually null, I modified this paragraph
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Walking
> _Routes#Wallonie>. Does everybody agree with the schema?

What's Wikiloc, and why would it need to be in the ref tag? Are these wikiloc
routes signed at all?

route=foot or route=hiking is virtually the same, I wouldn't worry about it,
there's probably a big discussion about it somewhere in the talk mailing list
archives.

Ben

_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Reply via email to