At first I was going to agree with Tim and s8evq but hey, the world is changing and from an user perspective, having itineraries on the map is a plus, wether they are signposted or not. I personally never follow sign posts, I just follow ‘a' route on my OSM-sourced GPS.
Regarding the question "what should be mapped or not", I believe the itineraries should appear in OSM only if their are proposed or designed by an official operator, not mr nobody. That’s enough to keep quality, not staying aside nice initiatives (even if virtual), and stay close to exhaustive when it comes to official itineraries. After all, a route, sign posted or not, is in a sense always virtual. Matthieu > On 13 Oct 2020, at 08:49, Tim Couwelier <tim.couwel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm inclined to go by 'mapping verifiable ground truth'. Which means no - > don't add them unless signposted along the way. > > Op di 13 okt. 2020 om 08:45 schreef s8evq <s8e...@runbox.com > <mailto:s8e...@runbox.com>>: > I do not think they should be in OSM, and I wouldn't mind deleting them. :) > > First of all, they are harder to keep up to date and verify. > Secondly, like you said, where do you draw the line. Who's routes do we add > and who's not? > > For example, Natuurpunt and some of the local tourism offices already have > 'virtual' hikes, where they only suggest which node numbers to combine. On > the ground, nothing is marked. I don't think this should be in OSM. > > If I get this correctly, 'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR) are hikes made out of > parts of existing GR trails? I wouldn't add that. The possibilities are just > endless... > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:57:59 +0000 (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be > <talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-be@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > There is a guideline or rule that only waymarked hiking/cycle/... routes > > should be added to OSM. Not everyone agrees and there are some > > non-waymarked routes in OSM because nobody, not even me, dares to remove > > them. > > Anyway, that rule/guideline is getting in trouble because some official > > routes are not waymarked anymore. > > Provincie Vlaams-Brabant enlarged the 'wandelnetwerk Getevallei', but the > > new nodes and routes are not waymarked anymore (too expensive). But there > > is a map, a website and an app. [1] > > The municipality of Profondeville has the project '1000 bornes' (40 > > parcours pour vélos de route et VTT): only gps-tracks on route-you. [2] > > More will probably follow (or perhaps already exist). > > > > So, what do we do? Or where do we draw the line? Because the line between > > what can be considered as official routes or not, could (in the future) > > become very thin. Or what do we do with the 'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR)? > > What if Natuurpunt/Natagora starts with 'virtual' walking routes? > > > > What is your opinion? > > > > Regards, > > > > StijnRR > > > > P.S. The new map of 'wandelnetwerk De Merode' has OSM as background layer. > > Thanks to everyone who contributed. > > > > [1] https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/ > > <https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/> > > [2] https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes > > <https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-be mailing list > > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
