'The future is virtual'. Yes and no. Personally, when I go walking - I prefer to.. walk. Not keep an eye on my phone for the route all the time. I do love having them available virtually - the majority of my signposted walks I've been able to find on RouteYou.
But when do I use the app? 1) When we're uncertain we're on the right track 2) If the kids start nagging 'how far do we have to go still'. I can see cycling routes (with a phone mounted on a steering wheel) go this route much faster. But for walking - I'd like to think signposted routes very much have their merit. Also, could be epic drama if cell phone battery dies along the way. Op ma 19 okt. 2020 om 23:06 schreef Wouter Hamelinck < wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>: > Totally agree with that. > > I also think that the future will be virtual, but don't think that it will > come from a website with a predefined network. I think that in the future > you will just insert some parameters (or the parameters have been deduced > from other routes that you liked) and a personal route will be generated > automatically. Hopefully based on OSM data. > For me it is a lot more important to have the underlying path right, than > to copy routes from all kinds of websites. Especially in forested regions, > it is incredible how many paths are still missing. Or how many that don't > exist have been mapped by armchair mappers. We should really focus on the > basis in my opinion. > > wouter > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:38 PM Sander Deryckere <sander...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 < >> talk-be@openstreetmap.org>: >> >>> >>> 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 < >>> steven.cl...@gmail.com> 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 < >>> matth...@gaillet.be>: >>> >>> >>> 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 <wouter.hameli...@gmail.com> >>> 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, <matth...@gaillet.be> >>> 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 <joost.schou...@gmail.com> >>> 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 < >>> matth...@gaillet.be>: >>> >>> >>> 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 <wouter.hameli...@gmail.com> >>> 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, <francois.ge...@gmail.com> >>> 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 <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>: >>> >>> 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> 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 >>> > 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________Talk-be mailing >>> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>> 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 >>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > > > -- > "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei." > - Thor Heyerdahl > _______________________________________________ > 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
