[OSM-talk] Relation/Routes and Hikes in open Country
richard at systemeD.net
Wed Jun 25 13:02:58 BST 2008
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
the API calls for all the common stuff. (There's also the issue of
changing IDs, of course.)
More information about the talk