[OSM-talk-be] waymarked or not?

Mon Oct 19 19:35:45 UTC 2020

Hi,

That's also what I would expect: virtual is the future. Installing all those signposts and keeping them in order takes a lot of time and money. If the tourism agencies see that they can virtualize them away without losing tourists, they will. We will indeed lose relevance if we don't go along.
By the way, if we stick to ground truth, we'll also have to remove most of the cycle highways because a lot of them haven't been waymarked yet and are still virtual. We just copied the information available on https://fietssnelwegen.be/ (and went even a lot further with those so called 'alternatives' which are still just somebody's fantasy in my opinion). So, in fact we already did decide that there is a place for virtual routes in OSM...
But indeed: we will have to make a thorough choice in the official operators AND their choices.

Some further comments on other reactions:

No, it's not harder to keep the virtual routes up to date. It's even easier. You don't have to go out to check if there are still signposts or you don't have to buy a map or check if it's still for sale. If the route is available on the 'source-website', it exists, otherwise not. We only need to know which is the 'source-website', so we don't rely on a (outdated) copy. For routes like the Randonnées en Boucle which are only available in a book, it's as dubious as a map: is the book still in print or not?

Adding virtual routes won't make it more 'messy' than it already is. Who checks regularly (every few years) whether the hiking/cycle/... routes in OSM haven't changed in the meantime or still exist? E.g. how long did it take before the outdated LF-routes got removed?

To Pierre and company: adding waymarked routes to OSM by using only gpx-tracks (if that is what you're doing) is even worse than adding virtual routes, because you have no guarantee that those gpx-tracks correspond to the ground truth. I know from experience. Also maps which correspond to the ground truth are rare. (But go ahead, I don't mind what you're doing.)
And indeed, we can't even keep up with the waymarked routes, but we could as well use that as an argument to give up mapping routes completely.

"A route, right now, is something you can expect to see waymarked." I feel we'll have to let go of this. "If someone starts mapping virtual routes, they should definitely be put in their own data model." They're still local/regional/... hiking/cycle/... routes. Adding some tag like 'virtual=yes" on the route relations and nodes should suffice. (It will be a bit more complicated because a node can be both a virtual hiking node and a real cycle node.)

Regards,

StijnRR

     On Monday, October 19, 2020, 07:34:48 PM GMT+2, Steven Clays <steven.clays at gmail.com> wrote:  

 Tendency in Toerisme Vlaanderen > ALL hiking nodes will go virtual within 10 years or so. (At least, that is their vision) So if you do not follow this tendency, you make OSM irrelevant for routes. I'd make a thorough choice in the official operators AND their choices. Eg. Natuurpunt DOES stick to signposting AFAIK. 

Op ma 19 okt. 2020 om 14:47 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <matthieu at gaillet.be>:

Wether they are following another route is not relevant since it’s a separate relation.
Matthieu Gaillet

On 19 Oct 2020, at 14:33, Wouter Hamelinck <wouter.hamelinck at gmail.com> wrote:
Are there any EV routes in Belgium that are not also LF or RV?
Wouter
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 12:29 Matthieu Gaillet, <matthieu at gaillet.be> wrote:

Things are actually much less obvious and deserve a real second thought before taking position : it just came up to my mind that much of the Eurovelo network is still currently completely virtual (work in progress), yet deleting in from our map would be totally irrelevant since this routes are actually existing by the simple fact that thousands of users are using it.
Matthieu Gaillet

On 13 Oct 2020, at 19:21, joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com> wrote:
I think we shouldn't actively map purely virtual routes. But there's a lot of info that only lives on paper and still is relevant to OSM. So I find it hard to give it a hard no. What is essential though, is that we don't make a mess of the tagging. A route, right now, is something you can expect to see waymarked. If someone starts mapping virtual routes, they should definitely be put in their own data model.

Op di 13 okt. 2020 om 13:27 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <matthieu at gaillet.be>:

That might be true but apply as well to signposted trails on the fled… I’m not fully convinced. 
But it is true that other websites or apps are specialised into publishing “virtual" trails and that might be something pertaining to the OSM project.
Matthieu Gaillet

On 13 Oct 2020, at 13:20, Wouter Hamelinck <wouter.hamelinck at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I follow those who propose to limit ourselves for the mapping purposes to what is waymarked on the ground.Taking routes from other sources (be they official or not) makes everything so fluid that we will end up with a huge mixed bag of gpx files that were at some point in time on some website of an authority, routes that are actively promoted, routes that were actively promoted for some event a few years ago and still can be found somewhere but are no longer maintained, routes where nobody really knows where they come from but they sound kind of official...It will get messy...
Wouter
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, 09:51 Francois Gerin, <francois.gerin at gmail.com> wrote:

+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> 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>:

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> 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/
 > [2] https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Talk-be mailing list
 > 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

  _______________________________________________
 Talk-be mailing list
 Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

  _______________________________________________Talk-be mailing listTalk-be at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be 
 _______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
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

_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Joost SchouppeOpenStreetMap | Twitter | LinkedIn | Meetup_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
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

_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
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

_______________________________________________
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/20201019/cc5b33ee/attachment-0001.htm>