+1 for the "end user's perspective".
From my point of view, two key rules make the ground for OSM as pointed
out in several places of the documentation:
1. Think to end users
2. Map what really exists
"Map what really exists" is visible in many places in the docs, and this
is indeed important, up to some "threshold".
"Think to the end users" is much less visible, but is visible anyway.
I'm afraid that, being driven mostly by technical profiles/mappers, the
"Map what exists" rule seems to take the precedence because it is more
visible.
According to me, "Think to the end users" should be the first rule, in
terms of priorities.
Followed by "Map what really exists", at the very same priority as "Use
your common sense" which is also very visible in the docs...
=> My 2 cents.
On 13/10/20 09:37, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
