[Tagging] Route maintenance tagging
davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Thu Jul 19 15:52:43 UTC 2018
On 19/07/2018 12:21, Peter Elderson wrote:
> All of those are survey goals.
A proposal like this comes along every few years & never really gets off
the ground. "Long hiking & cycling routes" by their nature of being long
are rarely traversed completely; people hop on-off of them in short
sections. So a "systematic survey" is highly unlikely.
Most of what's been listed here I would describe as every day mapping.
I'm unsure what benefit adding another tag, which will soon be
inaccurate, will bring.
There are a few validation tools to keep an eye on the integrity of
Can anyone recommend some others?
Historic GPX traces remain relevant. Individually they are not that
accurate. Having a collection allows a mapper to iron out inaccuracies &
estimate a mean average route.
If you want to register a path being physically non navigable, an email
to the authority responsible produces better results than marking it in OSM.
> The result of the survey may be that the route relation in OSM needs
> to be adapted to reflect the situation in the field. That's what I
> meant by maintenance of the route relation in OSM.
> The goal of the idea is to tag the date of the last reality check. The
> best thing I have now is the date of the last edit, which most of the
> time results from e.g. a mapper's action (cut or remove) on a way
> that's part of the route relation.
> I want to ensure that the route in the field and the route relation
> stay in sync, and when they don't (which is a 100% certainty) that you
> can tell at what point in time it did match.
> Information older than that date (e.g. gpx-tracks) can be discarded,
> newer information can be entered, and edits after the survey date are
> new info which should be kept.
> 2018-07-19 12:14 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>>:
> On 19/07/2018 07:50, Peter Elderson wrote:
> I would like some thoughts on the idea of tagging route
> maintenance. Long hiking & cycling routes need regular
> maintenance. On the road, of course, which is not our problem,
> but as a consequence they need re-surveying and adapting the
> route relations to reality.
> What do you mean by "maintenance" here? It could mean many things:
> o Making sure that the route in OSM still matches the route on the
> ground (diversions etc.).
> o Making sure that the route on the ground is actually navigable
> (e.g. a section of a walking route near me has suffered a landslip).
> o Making sure that the route markers on the ground are mapped in
> OSM (and updating OSM where they have disappeared)
> o Making sure that the route is still contiguous in OSM (sometimes
> if someone deletes and remaps an area they'll forget to readd a
> way to the route)
> Best Regards,
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging