<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>+1 for the "end user's perspective".</p>
<p>From my point of view, two key rules make the ground for OSM as
pointed out in several places of the documentation:</p>
<p>1. Think to end users<br>
</p>
<p>2. Map what really exists</p>
<p>"Map what really exists" is visible in many places in the docs,
and this is indeed important, up to some "threshold".<br>
"Think to the end users" is much less visible, but is visible
anyway.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>According to me, "Think to the end users" should be the first
rule, in terms of priorities.<br>
Followed by "Map what really exists", at the very same priority as
"Use your common sense" which is also very visible in the docs...</p>
<p>=> My 2 cents.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/10/20 09:37, Matthieu Gaillet
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:665B2196-E032-473A-939E-CFC89316860B@gaillet.be">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">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.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">After all, a route, sign posted or not, is in a
sense always virtual.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Matthieu</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 13 Oct 2020, at 08:49, Tim Couwelier <<a
href="mailto:tim.couwelier@gmail.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">tim.couwelier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">I'm inclined to go by 'mapping
verifiable ground truth'. Which means no - don't add
them unless signposted along the way.<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op di 13 okt. 2020
om 08:45 schreef s8evq <<a
href="mailto:s8evqq@runbox.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">s8evqq@runbox.com</a>>:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I do not think
they should be in OSM, and I wouldn't mind deleting
them. :)<br class="">
<br class="">
First of all, they are harder to keep up to date and
verify.<br class="">
Secondly, like you said, where do you draw the line.
Who's routes do we add and who's not? <br class="">
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
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...<br class="">
<br class="">
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:57:59 +0000 (UTC), Stijn
Rombauts via Talk-be <<a
href="mailto:talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
> Hi,<br class="">
> <br class="">
> 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.<br class="">
> Anyway, that rule/guideline is getting in
trouble because some official routes are not
waymarked anymore.<br class="">
> 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]<br
class="">
> The municipality of Profondeville has the
project '1000 bornes' (40 parcours pour vélos de
route et VTT): only gps-tracks on route-you. [2]<br
class="">
> More will probably follow (or perhaps already
exist).<br class="">
> <br class="">
> 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?<br class="">
> <br class="">
> What is your opinion?<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Regards,<br class="">
> <br class="">
> StijnRR<br class="">
> <br class="">
> P.S. The new map of 'wandelnetwerk De Merode'
has OSM as background layer. Thanks to everyone who
contributed.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> [1] <a
href="https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/</a><br
class="">
> [2] <a
href="https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes</a><br
class="">
> <br class="">
> _______________________________________________<br
class="">
> Talk-be mailing list<br class="">
> <a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br
class="">
> <a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
Talk-be mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br
class="">
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br
class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
Talk-be mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br
class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br
class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>