[Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Jul 19 21:41:14 UTC 2018


There is a national route near me.. it is some 5,000 km long. Not many walk/ride the entire length.

It is not complete in OSM, nor upto date. But there is a route .. broken in places ...  I think of it as a guide rather than truth.

The survey:date would have to be added to each way of the relation and be modified to survey:date:releationxxxx=*
Sorry but I'm not doing for the 100s of ways involved ... too much work.

On 20/07/18 07:06, Philip Barnes wrote:

>
> On 19 July 2018 20:57:20 BST, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just saw https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Asurvey%3Adate
>> Since survey:date is a documented tag, I will start using it to record
>> route survey dates.
>> Not on ways, but on sizeable hikingdare route relations.
> A date on a hiking route relation is likely to be meaningless for the reasons already mentioned by DaveF. That being they will rarely be walked in their entirety but mappers will do sections here and there.
>
> Using an example of my local long distance route, the Shropshire Way, I have systematically walked about half of it, so far that has taken over two years. Which date do I put on the relation?
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>> See if I can get fellow mappers and walking route operators to join the
>> effort.
>>
>> 2018-07-19 18:39 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Thanks for the warning. Of course it is not the idea to delete
>> anything
>>> except when proven wrong.
>>> I meant: information from outside sources, such as gpx-trackings,
>> which
>>> are older then the last completed survey, should not be entered into
>> OSM.
>>> Also remember that I'm talking about route information, not mapped
>>> physical objects. We're not mapping individual waymarks, but routes
>>> indicated by waymarks. Even if you remove the route relation, nothing
>>> physical is taken from the map.
>>>
>>> The survey date is the key data element here, if any kind of
>> systematic
>>> maintenance to the route relations is setup. Will it take? I don't
>> know.
>>> We'll see. The check&maintenance system for cycle node network and
>> walking
>>> node networks (vmarc.be) works like a charm, so I have good hope)
>>>
>>> 2018-07-19 17:02 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:22 AM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping the field survey up to date is a laudable goal, and I've no
>>>> objection to some sort of tagging that reports "this geometry was
>>>> field surveyed on <date>." Making it fit with the data model will be
>>>> challenging; it's not something that can be easily automated, given
>>>> the variety of mappers' workflows.In the current world, to make
>>>> something like this a reality you have to have an individual or
>>>> organization that becomes the de facto 'owner' of the route and
>> keeps
>>>> track of its own surveys - and that isn't very OSMish. I think this
>>>> could be worked around with sufficient cleverness.
>>>>
>>>> But please, please, don't discard data older than a certain date.
>> OSM
>>>> is a very young project as geography goes. While out-of-date data
>> can
>>>> be misleading, the right thing to do is to inform, not to delete,
>>>> particularly in cases where the out-of-date information is the only
>>>> information that is available. It may also be the only information
>>>> that can guide in recovering from an act of vandalism or a
>>>> badly-considered import.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I'm coming at this from the 'wrong' perspective. since a
>> fair
>>>> amount of my mapping is of features that nobody has yet seen fit to
>>>> map at all, or that were once imported from external data that I
>>>> consider hallucinatory. If someone with a GPS found a route passable
>> a
>>>> decade ago, that's a piece of information that I now have that I
>>>> wouldn't have had otherwise. It could be that the route is no longer
>>>> passable, has been relocated, or has been demolished, but without
>> the
>>>> old data, what reason do I have even to go and find out?
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, the land remembers. I've been on trips where abandoned
>>>> tracks and the grades of dismantled railroads, a century old and now
>>>> grown to trees, have been important landmarks. I have no qualms
>> about
>>>> not showing them on a general-purpose map, but to an off-trail
>> hiker,
>>>> they are waymarks for eyes to see that can.
>>>>
>>>> The right thing to do with 'stale' data - perhaps even 'proven
>>>> incorrect' data - is to inform, not to discard.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>>




More information about the Tagging mailing list