<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099">
<font color="#6633ff"><big><big><font face="Footlight MT Light">Hi<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
But it's a free country!<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
</font></big></big></font><br>
<br>
On 19:59, David Ellams wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:%3C1280964219.28225.1388363783@webmail.messagingengine.com%3E"
type="cite"><!--/*SC*/DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"/*EC*/-->
<title></title>
<style type="text/css"><!--body{padding:1ex;margin:0px;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:small;}a[href]{color:-moz-hyperlinktext !important;text-decoration:-moz-anchor-decoration;}blockquote{margin:0;border-left:2px solid #144fae;padding-left:1em;}blockquote blockquote{border-color:#006312;}blockquote blockquote blockquote{border-color:#540000;}--></style>
<div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;" dir="ltr">
<div>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?).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes</a></div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This question seems equivalent, to an extent, to this
question about the CTC National Byways Network:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Kingdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Kingdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div> </div>
<div>David (davespod)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b><i>Mike Harris</i></b></div>
</body>
</html>