[OSM-talk-be] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Marc Gemis]

I totally agree with Wouter's list. And I leave the most edge cases in
OSM, even when they are only tagged with note=Weg XXX (no highway
tag). But the ones that are just crossing through houses, through
backyards, etc. I remove. Also the ones through fenced fields are
deleted. Again, it's about ways that are tagged as note=xxx, not as
highway



regards
m

p.s. Joost, with "they" I mean whoever is mapping those non-existing
(at this moment) paths as note in OSM.


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Wouter Hamelinck
<wouter.hamelinck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is true but I'm missing a general mapping strategy, there is some
>> widespread tag misuse IMHO.
>
>
> IMHO this is valid for any kind of mapping, even where there exist clear
> guidelines.
>
>> It's really a binary thing, either it exists and verifiable in the
>> field, or either it's not.  We don't record historic buildings that have
>> disappeared, same applies to those roads that are gone and merely exist
>> on paper.
>
>
> It is not as binary as you would like to. Roads don't reappear
> spontaneously. Paths do. Sometimes limited periods of the year.
> Buildings don't move spontaneously. Path certainly do.
>
> The binary cases are
> - visible and accessible year-round: in OSM
> - invisible and totally inaccessible (e.g. going through building): not in
> OSM
> I think we can all agree on that.
>
> It gets a bit more tricky in the border cases, and there I add my opinion
> - visible and inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): in OSM, with access=private
> or whatever is appropriate and mapping the barriers
> - sometimes visible and year-round accessible: in OSM
> - visible and sometimes accessible (due to fences): in OSM and lots of fun
> with the access tags
> - visible and sometimes accessible (due to vegetation): in OSM. Is there by
> now a seasonal tag that can be used?
> - invisible and year-round accessible: in OSM (*)
> - year-round invisible and year-round inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): not
> in OSM (motivation: why would it be? It's no use to anyone)
>
> (*): this is probably the most controversial one. If the consensus is that
> this doesn't belong in OSM, just walk it a few times and you are in the case
> "sometimes visible and year-round accessible". Put it in OSM as such.
>
> Just as a description of cases where it not binary. If often pass over ways
> that are in Atlas, but most of the time you don't see any path. I just
> happen to know how the way crosses the field and that's how I go. Because it
> is in the Atlas, I'm allowed to do so. Even when crops are growing in the
> field I make my way across (**).
> Sometimes I encounter footprints, so I'm definitely not the only one that is
> using it. Especially during the winter a faint path may become visible. When
> a group of people happened to pass a few days (or even weeks depending on
> the weather) beforehand, you see a more or less clear path. Should it be in
> OSM? For me that is yes. Even if you won't see anything most of the year.
> (**): unless the farmer decides again to plant those thorny things that
> ripped my legs open when I tried to run across them
>
> Joost,
> I think it would be very good to put that page online (with disclaimer that
> it is under discussion at the moment). You might get some heat at points
> where some people don't agree, but at least it will make the discussion more
> focused.
>
> wouter
>
> --
> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
>                                        - Thor Heyerdahl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>