[OSM-talk-be] waymarked or not?

Tue Oct 13 07:50:04 UTC 2020

+1 for the "end user's perspective".

 From my point of view, two key rules make the ground for OSM as pointed 
out in several places of the documentation:

1. Think to end users

2. Map what really exists

"Map what really exists" is visible in many places in the docs, and this 
is indeed important, up to some "threshold".
"Think to the end users" is much less visible, but is visible anyway.

I'm afraid that, being driven mostly by technical profiles/mappers, the 
"Map what exists" rule seems to take the precedence because it is more 
visible.

According to me, "Think to the end users" should be the first rule, in 
terms of priorities.
Followed by "Map what really exists", at the very same priority as "Use 
your common sense" which is also very visible in the docs...

=> My 2 cents.

On 13/10/20 09:37, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
> At first I was going to agree with Tim and s8evq but hey, the world is 
> changing and from an user perspective, having itineraries on the map 
> is a plus, wether they are signposted or not. I personally never 
> follow sign posts, I just follow ‘a' route on my OSM-sourced GPS.
>
> Regarding the question "what should be mapped or not", I believe the 
> itineraries should appear in OSM only if their are proposed or 
> designed by an official operator, not mr nobody. That’s enough to keep 
> quality, not staying aside nice initiatives (even if virtual), and 
> stay close to exhaustive when it comes to official itineraries.
>
> After all, a route, sign posted or not, is in a sense always virtual.
>
> Matthieu
>
>> On 13 Oct 2020, at 08:49, Tim Couwelier <tim.couwelier at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:tim.couwelier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm inclined to go by 'mapping verifiable ground truth'. Which means 
>> no - don't add them unless signposted along the way.
>>
>> Op di 13 okt. 2020 om 08:45 schreef s8evq <s8evqq at runbox.com 
>> <mailto:s8evqq at runbox.com>>:
>>
>>     I do not think they should be in OSM, and I wouldn't mind
>>     deleting them. :)
>>
>>     First of all, they are harder to keep up to date and verify.
>>     Secondly, like you said, where do you draw the line. Who's routes
>>     do we add and who's not?
>>
>>     For example, Natuurpunt and some of the local tourism offices
>>     already have 'virtual' hikes, where they only suggest which node
>>     numbers to combine. On the ground, nothing is marked. I don't
>>     think this should be in OSM.
>>
>>     If I get this correctly, 'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR) are hikes
>>     made out of parts of existing GR trails? I wouldn't add that. The
>>     possibilities are just endless...
>>
>>     On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:57:59 +0000 (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via
>>     Talk-be <talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>>     <mailto:talk-be at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     > Hi,
>>     >
>>     > There is a guideline or rule that only waymarked
>>     hiking/cycle/... routes should be added to OSM. Not everyone
>>     agrees and there are some non-waymarked routes in OSM because
>>     nobody, not even me, dares to remove them.
>>     > Anyway, that rule/guideline is getting in trouble because some
>>     official routes are not waymarked anymore.
>>     > Provincie Vlaams-Brabant enlarged the 'wandelnetwerk
>>     Getevallei', but the new nodes and routes are not waymarked
>>     anymore (too expensive). But there is a map, a website and an
>>     app. [1]
>>     > The municipality of Profondeville has the project '1000 bornes'
>>     (40 parcours pour vélos de route et VTT): only gps-tracks on
>>     route-you. [2]
>>     > More will probably follow (or perhaps already exist).
>>     >
>>     > So, what do we do? Or where do we draw the line? Because the
>>     line between what can be considered as official routes or not,
>>     could (in the future) become very thin. Or what do we do with the
>>     'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR)? What if Natuurpunt/Natagora starts
>>     with 'virtual' walking routes?
>>     >
>>     > What is your opinion?
>>     >
>>     > Regards,
>>     >
>>     > StijnRR
>>     >
>>     > P.S. The new map of 'wandelnetwerk De Merode' has OSM as
>>     background layer. Thanks to everyone who contributed.
>>     >
>>     > [1]
>>     https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/
>>     <https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/>
>>     > [2] https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes
>>     <https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes>
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > Talk-be mailing list
>>     > Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
>>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Talk-be mailing list
>>     Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20201013/86d6850a/attachment.htm>