Thanks for your feedback, guys. On reflection, I now agree that route relations should generally be reserved for waymarked routes. I also agree with Richard F's comment that there is a need for a separate repository for sharing the sorts of unofficial routes I am talking about.
Cheers David On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:44 +0100, "Richard Mann" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that walking routes are much more flexible than (say) cycling > routes, so there would be every prospect that umpteen different sets > of overlapping routes could be created by different people. So I'd > probably advise against putting them in the database unless they are > waymarked. > > Richard > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:23 AM, David Ellams > <[email protected]> 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) > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
