If the virtual routes are available under a strict copyright, there's nothing we can map. And if they are available under a free copyright, we add very little value by adding them to OSM.
So I believe they don't belong in the main OSM db, but rather in a side project (a project made for routes, prrhaps something umap like?). Op ma 19 okt. 2020 21:38 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be < [email protected]>: > > Hi, > > That's also what I would expect: virtual is the future. Installing all > those signposts and keeping them in order takes a lot of time and money. If > the tourism agencies see that they can virtualize them away without losing > tourists, they will. We will indeed lose relevance if we don't go along. > By the way, if we stick to ground truth, we'll also have to remove most of > the cycle highways because a lot of them haven't been waymarked yet and are > still virtual. We just copied the information available on > https://fietssnelwegen.be/ (and went even a lot further with those so > called 'alternatives' which are still just somebody's fantasy in my > opinion). So, in fact we already did decide that there is a place for > virtual routes in OSM... > But indeed: we will have to make a thorough choice in the official > operators AND their choices. > > Some further comments on other reactions: > > No, it's not harder to keep the virtual routes up to date. It's even > easier. You don't have to go out to check if there are still signposts or > you don't have to buy a map or check if it's still for sale. If the route > is available on the 'source-website', it exists, otherwise not. We only > need to know which is the 'source-website', so we don't rely on a > (outdated) copy. For routes like the Randonnées en Boucle which are only > available in a book, it's as dubious as a map: is the book still in print > or not? > > Adding virtual routes won't make it more 'messy' than it already is. Who > checks regularly (every few years) whether the hiking/cycle/... routes in > OSM haven't changed in the meantime or still exist? E.g. how long did it > take before the outdated LF-routes got removed? > > To Pierre and company: adding waymarked routes to OSM by using only > gpx-tracks (if that is what you're doing) is even worse than adding virtual > routes, because you have no guarantee that those gpx-tracks correspond to > the ground truth. I know from experience. Also maps which correspond to the > ground truth are rare. (But go ahead, I don't mind what you're doing.) > And indeed, we can't even keep up with the waymarked routes, but we could > as well use that as an argument to give up mapping routes completely. > > "A route, right now, is something you can expect to see waymarked." I feel > we'll have to let go of this. "If someone starts mapping virtual routes, > they should definitely be put in their own data model." They're still > local/regional/... hiking/cycle/... routes. Adding some tag like > 'virtual=yes" on the route relations and nodes should suffice. (It will be > a bit more complicated because a node can be both a virtual hiking node and > a real cycle node.) > > Regards, > > StijnRR > > On Monday, October 19, 2020, 07:34:48 PM GMT+2, Steven Clays < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Tendency in Toerisme Vlaanderen > ALL hiking nodes will go virtual within > 10 years or so. (At least, that is their vision) So if you do not follow > this tendency, you make OSM irrelevant for routes. I'd make a thorough > choice in the official operators AND their choices. Eg. Natuurpunt DOES > stick to signposting AFAIK. > > Op ma 19 okt. 2020 om 14:47 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <[email protected] > >: > > > 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]> 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]> 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] > >: > > > 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]> > 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]> > 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]> 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]>: > > 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]> 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/ > > [2] https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > _______________________________________________Talk-be mailing > [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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > [email protected] > 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] > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
