[HOT] newbie needs advice - connecting paths
kretzer at gmx.net
Wed May 6 12:07:32 UTC 2015
This is one of the examples I came across: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/27.45550/85.42807
Maybe it's not the best one - it looks like you can easily walk from one building to the other, but you can't really tell the altitude differences. OpenCycleMaps knows that there are steep gradients nearby, but I don't think it's accurate enough to use with certainty at that scale.
So I did not want to just draw an arbitrary line. The paths are each connected at one side, so it's not like ther has to be a connection.
My inclination is to err on the side of caution, but I'm interested to know what others think.
(Sorry I did not disable HTML in my former mails. The web client should do that automatically, but doesn't always.)
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2015 um 11:49 Uhr
Von: Kretzer <kretzer at gmx.net>
An: "Andre Engels" <andreengels at gmail.com>
Cc: "Suzan Reed" <suzan at suzanreed.com>, hot <hot at openstreetmap.org>
Betreff: Aw: Re: [HOT] newbie needs advice - connecting paths
Andre, I think the case Suzan describes is not a "proper" path being invisible, rather that people just walk without paths, eg between several houses. In this case it would be pointless to draw a fan of paths to each house. I would rather end the path somewhere in the village.
In general I agree, that it is better to have a connected network - that's why I asked. Still I think there are limits to this. In the cases I am thinking of it was not possible to judge from the imagery if it is physicallv possible to walk between two visible paths (like paths on either side of a steep ridge). I did not want to send anyone over a cliff just because I filled in the blanks ... After all we should map what is on the ground, not what we think should be there.
And I don't think many people use routing with paths in this time and space. They don't even do that in my part of the Alps where a dense and well mapped networks of "official" hiking paths exists.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2015 um 06:36 Uhr
Von: "Andre Engels" <andreengels at gmail.com>
An: "Suzan Reed" <suzan at suzanreed.com>
Cc: hot <hot at openstreetmap.org>, Kretzer <kretzer at gmx.net>
Betreff: Re: [HOT] newbie needs advice - connecting paths
I disagree. In a case like you mention - a path, then an open area, then a path again - in my opinion there is a path across the open space, just one that is not easily visible in the terrain. Having gaps in ways seriously undermines the usability of the database.
On 6 May 2015 03:54, "Suzan Reed" <suzan at suzanreed.com> wrote:Walking in Nepal one can be on a path and it will suddenly disappear, and then you walk across open ground to your destination. People don't necessarily walk on a path, especially between houses, and houses in the same "village" can be a quarter mile away or more. Knowing this, I have not connected paths blindly. I know they just end sometimes. Yet it is still valuable to know where they are.
Most of the Bing imagery I'm working with was taken during the dry season, so all the rushing great streams and rivers are dry. In the wet season they will be roaring with water. Good to map them.
On May 5, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Kretzer wrote:
I was also wondering about the best approach to connecting paths.
On one hand all highways only make sense when they are connected, on the other it does not feel good to me to guess too freely where an invisible path might go. Particularly in steep terrain paths that are quite close horizontally really don't connect, as there can be a cliff or something in between. I often feel tempted to close a short gap "blindly" but did not as this can be really dangerous. It's probably better to leave it as patchwork and hope that the map will be improved later with better imagery or people with local knowledge.
In other situations it feels quite safe to fill in the blanks, like when a clearly visible road disappears into a small forest and the same type of road appears on the other side.
As to waterways and paths it often helps to follow them for a longer stretch and see where they go. This often gives you a better picture, if you see them run into a bigger river for example.
PS I'd also prefer a more permanent place than IRC to get answers, so people can read them up later. Maybe a kind of forum would be useful to not clog up the mailing list?
Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Mai 2015 um 17:34 Uhr
Von: "Katja Ulbert" <mail at katja-ulbert.de>
An: "hot at openstreetmap.org" <hot at openstreetmap.org>
Betreff: [HOT] newbie needs advice
I am a newbie coming up with a few questions, It would be great if someone with more knowledge could take the time to answer them. They don´t have to be answered here and now or via mailinglist, I am also on IRC #hot as katjaulbert. I am mapping in task #1018.
1) Paths: I have come across some that are obviously connected but there are small areas where I cant´t follow their course. Same with paths that lead into forests, where they disappear and reappear on the other side. Should I connect them? I don´t think it´s useful to have tiny bits of paths in the map or paths that lead into nowhere.
2) I need advice to distinguish dried waterways from paths. Waterways seem to be much broader and uneven and often accompanied from paths.
3) Tags: I cant´t find some tags that are advised in the task instruction, for example bridge=supension. Are there any presets I forgot to load?
4) Imagery: I use Bing and Mapbox, are there any more sources? Also, is there a way to digitally zoom Mapbox imagery? Sometimes it´s easier to spot things with Mapbox, especially paths, but it stops displaying at some point.
Thanks for taking time!
Katja _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list HOT at openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
HOT mailing list
HOT at openstreetmap.org
HOT mailing list
HOT at openstreetmap.org
More information about the HOT