Hi
As someone who does quite a bit of work on adding paths (including
public rights of way) and walking routes to OSM my personal view would
be to add relations only for routes which are either (a) waymarked as a
route, and/or (b) carry a specific name e.g. "Little Sodding Millennium
Walk". This is to avoid a proliferation of routes simply created locally
- I create a good few each week!
But it's a free country!
Mike
On 19:59, David Ellams wrote:
Where I live there is a Parish Paths Partnership (P3) Group, where
volunteers work with the council on projects to maintain and improve
access to public footpaths and brideways, e.g., waymarking, replacing
stiles with gates, etc. They publish a number of suggested walks on
their website (the walks for the most part just have descriptive
titles such as "Circular walk - Pontesbury Hill and Polesgate
Coppice"). With one exception, the routes themselves are not
signed/marked (though they follow waymarked paths). I am thinking
that, once I've got a bit more of the footpath network mapped, I might
ask them whether they would like some maps of their routes for their
web site, etc. (if I'm feeling really ambitious, I might one day even
try to get them involved in the surveying/mapping - a footpath mapping
party?).
My question is whether I should record route relations for these
(perhaps slightly unofficial) unsigned walks (ranging from 1.5 to
about 5 miles). The Walking Routes page on the wiki suggests that
"lwn" is to be used for signed routes.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
This question seems equivalent, to an extent, to this question about
the CTC National Byways Network:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Kingdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F
I realise there is nothing to stop me from adding these
walking routes (as relations) to OSM, but I'd welcome feedback on
whether folk think it is appropriate. Has anyone done anything like
this elsewhere? I would not have to add them to OSM in order to
produce some maps, so quite relaxed if there is a consensus that it is
not appropriate.
There is also a local Walking For Health group, with some involvement
from the council, which publishes routes, but as far as I can see
these are waymarked specifically, so I probably will consider creating
route relations for those. Likewise, the P3 Group's one specifically
waymarked (and named) route, I feel is a good candidate to record in
OSM. So shout if you think I'm wrong on that one, too.
Cheers
David (davespod)
--
*/Mike Harris/*
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
