Wether they are following another route is not relevant since it’s a separate relation.
Matthieu Gaillet > On 19 Oct 2020, at 14:33, Wouter Hamelinck <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are there any EV routes in Belgium that are not also LF or RV? > > Wouter > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 12:29 Matthieu Gaillet, <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Things are actually much less obvious and deserve a real second thought > before taking position : it just came up to my mind that much of the Eurovelo > network is still currently completely virtual (work in progress), yet > deleting in from our map would be totally irrelevant since this routes are > actually existing by the simple fact that thousands of users are using it. > > Matthieu Gaillet > >> On 13 Oct 2020, at 19:21, joost schouppe <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I think we shouldn't actively map purely virtual routes. But there's a lot >> of info that only lives on paper and still is relevant to OSM. So I find it >> hard to give it a hard no. What is essential though, is that we don't make a >> mess of the tagging. A route, right now, is something you can expect to see >> waymarked. If someone starts mapping virtual routes, they should definitely >> be put in their own data model. >> >> Op di 13 okt. 2020 om 13:27 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> That might be true but apply as well to signposted trails on the fled… I’m >> not fully convinced. >> >> But it is true that other websites or apps are specialised into publishing >> “virtual" trails and that might be something pertaining to the OSM project. >> >> Matthieu Gaillet >> >>> On 13 Oct 2020, at 13:20, Wouter Hamelinck <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I follow those who propose to limit ourselves for the mapping purposes to >>> what is waymarked on the ground. >>> Taking routes from other sources (be they official or not) makes everything >>> so fluid that we will end up with a huge mixed bag of gpx files that were >>> at some point in time on some website of an authority, routes that are >>> actively promoted, routes that were actively promoted for some event a few >>> years ago and still can be found somewhere but are no longer maintained, >>> routes where nobody really knows where they come from but they sound kind >>> of official... >>> It will get messy... >>> >>> Wouter >>> >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, 09:51 Francois Gerin, <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> +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 >>>>> <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 >>> <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 >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> >> >> >> -- >> Joost Schouppe >> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | >> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup >> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>_______________________________________________ >> 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] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
