[talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail is not a dedicated bicycle route
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Sep 14 22:46:38 UTC 2014
On 14/09/2014 11:25 AM, Mark Rennick wrote:
> I note there has been mapping of the Bicentennial National Trail as a
> ‘bicycle route’ in the Victorian Alpine National Park area.
> I have two comments on this:
> 1.*This trail is not a dedicated ‘bicycle route’*. //
> As stated on the http://www.bicentennialnationaltrail.com.au/about/
> web site: /‘//The*Bicentennial National Trail*is Australia’s premier
> long distance, multi-use recreational trekking
> route...............................The National Trail was originally
> conceived as a route for the long distance horse trekker but is now
> enjoyed by cyclists and hikers as well.’ /
> I believe this trail should be mapped as a _generic_, not bicycle
> ‘route’, tagged with for example: horse trekking, mountain biking,
> It may however be desirable to have this trail additionally mapped as
> a ‘bicycle route’. For example, so that mountain bike route planning
> will see this route in applications such as ‘Openmtbmap’. It should
> be mapped as an _additional _relationship, to the generic Bicentennial
> National Trail route, without the name ‘Bicentennial National Trail’.
A) Generic route? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route ..
has bicycle, horse and walking ... how would you make it generic?
Usually the particular activity (bicycle, horse or walking) make a map
for that activity - that may not identify a 'generic' as being usable by
that activity. So, as you point out it may be needed to map it for each
activity. In which case the 'generic' loses its appeal.
B) Name.. if it is the 'Bicentennial National Trail' (BNT) then it
should carry that name.
C) Copyright? Are the BNT happy with OSM mapping this data? I know they
want to be able to change the route quickly (floods, fires etc.) but I
have no idea as to their official attitude as to 'their' route being
placed into OSM data.
Similar thoughts on the 'alternate BNT routes'.
Words - dedicated .. as in 'exclusive'? Humm We have 'designated'
bicycle routes - some of these are exclusive, most are shared. Think
that is a poor choice of word .. maybe substitute designated for dedicated?
I'm happy to map bits along the BNT .. but I map to the sides ... these
are usefull for escape/access to/from the BNT .. and may be of use to
others too. I tend to map water along there too .. as they too can be
usefull. I do not map their campsites .. could lead to over use .. and
at least some of them require permission (in some cases writen
permission!). I don't know who is maping the BNT sections and if they
have any permission to do so. I certainly don't have permission .. but
they I don't identify my bits as part of the BNT. Some of my side bits
will distract others from the BNT. Some of my side bits were part of teh
BNT .. but are no longer part of the BNT - it changes over time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au