Andy Allan wrote: > I'd define it slightly differently - its do we want *subjective* > routes in OSM? I don't think anyone is arguing that notable > *objective* routes, like the Pennine Way in the UK or the Appalachian > Way in the US can certainly be included as a route.
(...or the entire National Cycle Network :) ) That's a good rule - agreed completely. As ever, we map what's on the ground. Something I keep toying with is the idea of facilitating mashups (did I really just say that?) by giving masher-uppers a way to tie their routes to OSM IDs. If you plot a favourite walk on a Google Map, you're effectively just drawing lines and points on a flat map. There's no tie-up with the underlying data. You might as well do it on a paper map. What we can offer, theoretically, is the ability to say "this walk is along OSM ways 197687345, 197687343, 29587031". This is really good, because it means the mashup site can actually use the data: the footpath quality, where the gates and stiles are, how many miles to the next pub/station, etc. You can do that right now, but it requires downloading a planet excerpt and some heavy hacking, which is beyond the capabilities of most masher-uppers. The aim, I guess, would be to make it as easy as using the Google API - a nice piece of reliable JavaScript to handle the API calls for all the common stuff. (There's also the issue of changing IDs, of course.) cheers Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
