<div dir="ltr"><div>We've had this discussion before, and you're representing the consensus: no walking routes that aren't marked on the ground, and you should be able to walk the route by following the marks or signs. Or we risk, as you say, that everyone will just make their own routes, maybe put them on their own website, and then copy it to OSM. Transport lines are something completely different that don't apply here (and anyway, you can follow those routes without any reference, just follow the bus, boat or whatever). Also, does he even have permission to copy the routes from the books he's using? If not, that's plain copyright infringement.<br><br></div><div>Greetings,<br></div>Ben<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Erik Beerten <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ebe050@gmail.com" target="_blank">ebe050@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello,<br>
<br>
Since a few years I have meanly been busy with tagging (waymarked)
walking routes. Recently I got annoyed because in the regions where
I am active there are walking routes visible on <a href="http://waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=14&lat=50.58689&lon=5.18461&hill=0" target="_blank">www.waymarkedtrails.org</a>
but without any sign on the ground (as <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2099391" target="_blank">(1)</a> &
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4108560" target="_blank">(2)</a> ).<br>
I contacted the taggers via remarks to their changesets. They
confirmed that those routes are not marked on the ground but only
described in a book. I argued that only marked routes should get in
OSM because of the principles described in <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice</a>
The relevant principles are 'Map what's on the ground' and
'Verifiability'. For this last principle 'essentially means another
mapper should be able to come to the same place and collect the same
data'. Verifiability has as consequence for non marked routes (only
described in a book) that another mapper who checks a mapped route
and doesn't find any marks, can only conclude that this route
doesn't exist (anymore) and that it should be deleted in OSM.
<div>Gerdami, the mapper who did the
route near Fumal (Liège) didn't agree and refers to buslines,
trainline, airlines and maritime lines(see below) and therefore I
want to put this issue to the community. <br>
<br>
Other arguments to leave routes not marked on the ground out of
OSM besides 'Map what's on the ground' and 'Verifiability':<br>
<ul>
<li>All tagged routes get in <a href="http://waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=14&lat=50.58689&lon=5.18461&hill=0" target="_blank">www.waymarkedtrails.org</a>
. If also not waymarked routes get in there then this
application looses all value.<br>
Now you can have a look on this application or similar as
<a href="http://hikebikemap.org" target="_blank">hikebikemap.org</a>, find a waymarked route, go to a place where
it passes and follow the signs. </li>
<li>If walking routes described in a book (or just thought-out
by whoever) can get in OSM, we risk that an enormous number of
walking routes can get in OSM without any added value. Just
imagine that all routes described in the hundreds of walking
guides for Belgium, written by Julien van Remoortere or in
Lannoo's walking guides or others, get in OSM. Tagging
waymarked trails would loose all sense. A users can't see any
difference on the actual cards between a marked or unmarked
route.</li>
<li>If walking routes only describe in a book are permitted then
there should be a key is to make destinction between marked
and unmarked routes to permit making cards as of waymarked
trails. </li>
<li>The same is valid for biking and MTB routes. There are also
lots of those that are only described in books or websites.
What about the CycleMap layer of <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/50.6347/5.1351&layers=C" target="_blank">www.openstreetmap.org</a>
? Include biking routes only described in books?</li>
<li> Renderers as <a href="http://waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=14&lat=50.58689&lon=5.18461&hill=0" target="_blank">www.waymarkedtrails.org</a>
have no possibility to filter non marked trails to show only
the waymarked trails. I wonder what they would find of
permitting to add not marked trails?</li>
</ul>
<p>What to do? <br>
</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
</p>
<p>Erik <br>
</p>
<br>
-------- Doorgestuurd bericht --------
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap align="RIGHT">Onderwerp:
</th>
<td>[OpenStreetMap] gerdami heeft gereageerd op een
wijzigingenset waar u interesse in hebt</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap align="RIGHT">Datum: </th>
<td>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:21:49 +0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap align="RIGHT">Van: </th>
<td>OpenStreetMap <a href="mailto:web@noreply.openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"><web@noreply.openstreetmap.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap align="RIGHT">Aan: </th>
<td><a href="mailto:ebe050@gmail.com" target="_blank">ebe050@gmail.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Hallo,
<p> gerdami heeft gereageerd op een wijzigingenset die u volgt die
gemaakt is door gerdami op 2015-09-04 19:21:49 UTC met reactie
"Eglise de Latinne" </p>
==
<p>Dear Eebie, <br>
You have a restrictive reading of the guidelines, which by the
way are guidelines, not rules. <br>
The guidelines do not say anything about relations, which are
logical by definition. <br>
If we were to follow your restrictive view, one would have to
delete all maritime lines because they could not be verified on
the ground. Bus lines should be removed as well because, unlike
railways, there are no physical markings on the roads, a part
bus stops. International bus lines such as Eurolines could not
be mapped. Same would go for airlines. <br>
Moreover, as regards the walking route I created as relation, it
fully complies with the "Verifiability" criteria since the route
is described in a real book which can be bought or read by
anyone. <br>
Finally, you should read again the introduction of the
guidelines that says "Nobody is forced to obey them, nor will
OSM ever force any of its mappers to do anything. There might be
cases where these guidelines don't apply, or even contradict
each other." Not to mention the "Any tags you like principle" (<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like</a>)
which reads "Remember that OpenStreetMap does not have any
content restrictions on tags that can be assigned to nodes, ways
or areas. You can use any tags you like, but please document
them here on the OpenStreetMap wiki, even if self explanatory."
... <br>
Thank you for your understanding. <br>
Best, <br>
gerdami </p>
==
<p>Meer details over de wijzigingenset kunt u vinden op <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/11098054" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/11098054</a>.</p>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>