[Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes
s8evq at runbox.com
Tue Aug 20 07:48:02 UTC 2019
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 14:34:20 +0100, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A map with copyright permitting OSM to make use of its data. There are
> several walks near
> me which appear on maps published by the county council or tourist board.
> Copyright does
> not permit me to make use of those maps. However, some of those walks will
> sign-posted/waymarked, so they could be mapped (but not by me, I'm nowhere
> near fit
If it's government maps with permission, you could argue the case. But I'm especially afraid a lot of "not so official" routes would be entered that way. I once found a kayak club had entered it's weekend trip in OSM.
Another argument against mapping based on other maps with permission is that it's a lot harder to verify. If we only map based on the presence of physical markers on the ground, other mappers who pass by might be able to spot mistakes or omission. On the other hand, when something is mapped based of an online PDF, I'm afraid it will not get double checked so quickly anymore.
> I would map public footpaths, if I found information about them where the
> copyright permits.
> A collection of footpaths that somebody has defined as a walk is another
> matter, because
> copyright issues are more likely to arise. If the copyright permitted it,
> would you deem
> any of these
> suitable or unsuitable? Many of them appear on maps on noticeboards. I'd
> expect many to
> be signposted and waymarked, but am too unhealthy to look. Would they only
> be mappable
> if signposted/waymarked or would a map without copyright problems be enough?
For me personally: only when waymarked. But I don't know how other view this point, I'm interested in hearing different opinions.
More information about the Tagging