[OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks

[Jo]

Hi Marc,

2011/10/12 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>

> Sorry, for bringing up this topic in the first place. I thought that a new
> consensus on mapping regional mapping networks was reached, since an
> experienced mapper was using it.


Don't feel sorry. The only way to get forward and improve is by discussing
these topics, experimenting with new ways of doing things, etc.

>
> While I understand that there are pros and cons on the documented method
> and Gerard's method, I continue to use the documented method. Simply because
> this is the only one that new mappers can learn by looking at the
> documentation.
>
> I regret that people will have to use different methods for the different
> networks. I would rather see that everybody uses the same method. Discussion
> on changing the method can go on, but IMHO everybody should use the old,
> documented method until a new consensus is reached and documented. Hopefully
> a program can do the conversion in such a case.
>

I got that base covered (automatic conversion).

>
> I did some additions to the Zuid-Dijleland network, but right now I'm
> hesitating to add nodes (in case I get the time to walk there again).
>

No need to hesitate, just add them and any routes you encounter. It's more
important to have the data. We can always modify it when it's there.

>
> As for the naming of the networks. I think the situation for the walking
> networks is different than for the cycling networks. Walking networks do not
> have the 00-99 limitation for example. I will keep using the names found on
> the signposts, simply because I do not have access to any other source. I
> will also keep adding any route tagged as 'Kempense Heuvelrug to the
> 'Antwerpse Kempen' network-relation, since they belong to that one
> (according to the signposts).
>

I think walking/hiking networks are easier, for one thing because there are
no one way streets for pedestrians, so no forward/backward roles needed.
Since they were developed later and because there are a lot more nodes in
these networks, the tourism services seem to have decided not to limit
themselves to 00-99, for which I'm grateful; it makes it a lot easier to
know which nodes belong to a certain network. Also the naming is better
thought through. When more walking/hiking networks show up, maybe we can use
those names as inspiration for the cycle networks. In my opinion they are
simply too big, if all of Kempen/Leiestreek/Westhoek have to go in one
network.
I tend to think they too learned from the 'mistakes' they made with the
cycle node networks. Oddly those 'mistakes' were not made in the Limburg
network of cycle routes and I thought all the others were inspired on that
one.

Maybe we should create another network-relation for the routes and the nodes
> belonging to the networks documented by an additional source. We could have
> a 'Kempense Heuvelrug' as a subset of the 'Antwerpse Kempen' relationship.
> Assuming they are not identical.
>

If the signposts have Kempense Heuvelrug, I would create a separate network
relation for it. We can always have collection relations to group them
together at a higher level.

In fact I would like to create a hierarchy of levels in the collections of
cycle nodes:

Collection: cycle node networks in Belgium

Collections: cycle node networks in West-Vlaanderen, Oost-Vlaanderen,
Antwerpen, Vlaams-Brabant, Limburg, Liège, Hohes Venn

Collections: Kust, Westhoek, Brugse Ommeland, Meetjesland
                  Meetjesland, Leiestreek, Waasland, Scheldeland, Vlaamse
Ardennen
                  Scheldeland, Kempen
                  Vlaams-Brabant West, Vlaams-Brabant Oost (might not be
necessary)
                  I don't think there is a need to subdivide Limburg at this
level.

Networks:    mostly as I have them now. Maybe subdivide Limburg in
Maasstreek, Midden-Limburg, Haspengouw


Inventing names for a group of nodes and routes is fine, but how does
> someone else know where to add new nodes and routes ? One should document
> clearly which nodes and routes go where. I think this (inventing names) is
> not needed (yet) for the walking networks.


Indeed it isn't. See above. As far as the cycle nodes go, they all belong to
a network relation now. I don't guarantee that I won't feel tempted to shift
some of them once more, but I don't expect us to find many new ones any more
in Belgium. If somebody does encounter a new one, it can be assigned to the
same network as the surrounding nodes. (In JOSM it's easy to get an overview
of those networks when using 'kaarttekenstijlen'. The nodes with an rcn_ref
can be highlighted in a colour depending on the network they belong to).
When a new node is encountered on the 'border' between two networks, it can
be assigned to the network where the node number makes most sense (either
because it's missing or because it's near to the surrounding node numbers).
That's what I've been doing in September and it's what I'm doing in The
Netherlands at the moment for the unassigned nodes.

>
> So, do not expect any change in my tagging behaviour for walking networks
> until a consensus is reached. Hopefully I get notified when this is the
> case.
>

I'm afraid we are far away from a consensus... So for the moment it's a
status quo situation and you can't go wrong when you go on as documented on
the wiki.

Cheers,

Jo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20111012/6a8dfaa0/attachment.htm>