[talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail

Mander Li mander2li at yahoo.com.au
Sat Nov 30 03:56:07 UTC 2013


> It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts
of the trail are accessible to which categories of users.  How do you
intend to encapsulate that info?

No such problem. There is one and only one official route that walker, MTB and horse are able to take on; ie the existing 3 relations should be exactly the same. Moreover, I have compared the existing 3 BNT relations (2347837, 2347838, 2347839). After removing the errors and duplications, these 3 relations are EXACTLY the same.


However there are some alternate routes which are:
1. to avoid river crossing when water level is high (eg map 4 guidebook 11)
2. to go to campsite (eg map 14 of guidebook 12)
3. to get water or good feed for horses (eg map 10 guidebook 12)
4. to bypass long and dry tracks (eg map 18 of guidebook 11)
5. to go to a town (eg map A of guidebook 7)
6. to bypass a town (eg map 4 & 5 of guidebook 10)
7. to bypass hard-to-navigate sections (eg map 12 of guidebook 12)
8. to bypass overgroswn tracks (eg map 11 of guidebook 9)
9. to bypass tracks that are closed during winter (eg map 11 of guidebook 11)
10. shortcuts (eg map 2 guidebook 10)
11. to bypass steep, rough, difficult or dangerous sections (eg map 11 of guidebook 10 - 19km of road with heavy truck traffic and no verge - dangerous to horse, mtb and walker.)

Note that the original route permits MTB and horse. The alternate routes are for those who don't want the challenge. I'd put all alternate routes into a separate relation called something like "BNT - alternate routes" so that we can tell the alternate route from original route.






> What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and
putting three relations into another reln?

The BNT is too long to be maintained in one relation. The recommended size of a relation is 300 members (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size). Even if it is separated into 3 relations (one for each state), it is well over the recommended size. Actually, to reduce the size problem, it'd better to have 12 BNT relations - one for each BNT guidebook. 

Mander



On Wednesday, 27 November 2013 5:31 AM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
 
Hi,
>
>It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts
>of the trail are accessible to which categories of users.  How do you
>intend to encapsulate that info?
>
>What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and
>putting three relations into another reln?  I don't think relations of
>relations is well supported, and I can't see the motivation for it
>here.
>
>Ian.
>
>
>
>On 22 November 2013 20:52, Mander Li <mander2li at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> I tried to create a "Bicentennial
 National Trail" relation, but found 4
>> relations of this name:
>>
>> Relation 176684: created in July 2009 by John Henderson with route=hiking.
>> This covers 213km from Canberra CBD to Taralga (half way between Canberra
>> and Sydney)
>>
>> Relation 2347837 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=hiking. This
>> covers about 95% of VIC section, 40% of Canberra section, 2% of NSW section,
>> 1% of QLD section. Total 715km of which 53km of the Dargo High Plains Road
>> is not part of the BNT
>>
>> Relation 2347838 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=bicycle.
>> This is almost the same as Relation 2347837 (with less ways and without the
>> 53km of Dargo High Plains Road). Total 645km.
>>
>> Relation 2347839 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=mtb. This is
>> the same as Relation 2347838.
>>
>> Question for Nick Barker: Why 3 relations? BNT is a trail for walkers,
>> MTBers, and horses, so these 3 relation will be the same.
>>
>> Question for John Henderson and everybody: what should be the route type
>> (route=hiking, bicycle  or mtb) when the trail is for walkers, MTBers and
>> horses?
>>
>> I suggest:
>> 1. Relation 2347837: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - VIC
>> section; and remove sections in other states
>>
>> 2. Relation 2347838: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - NSW
>> section; remove
 sections in other states; and merge with Relation 176684
>>
>> 3. Relation 2347839: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - QLD
>> section; and remove sections in other states
>>
>> 4. Relation 176684: remove all sections; put Relations 2347837, 2347838,
>> 2347839 into it as members; ie this relation will become a super-relation
>> with 3 relations as member
>>
>> 5. Change all 4 relations to have tags: route=mtb, foot=yes and horse=yes
>> IMHO, this is becasue 1) BNT is for road bikes, 2) trails for hiking may not
>> allow MTB, 3) 99.9% of trails that allow MTB also allow walkers, 4) it
>> allows the tags "mtb:difficulty=advanced, and mtb:type=crosscountry as in
>> now Relation 2347838
>>
>> John Henderson, you won't be able to see the trail at
>> hiking.waymarkedtrails.org, but it will be at mtb.waymarkedtrails.org.
>>
>> Any comments? or I'll do it.
>>
>>
>> Mander
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20131129/8d7ea8a1/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list