[OSM-talk-be] waymarked or not?

Mon Oct 19 20:35:52 UTC 2020

If the virtual routes are available under a strict copyright, there's
nothing we can map. And if they are available under a free copyright, we
add very little value by adding them to OSM.

So I believe they don't belong in the main OSM db, but rather in a side
project (a project made for routes, prrhaps something umap like?).

Op ma 19 okt. 2020 21:38 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be <
talk-be at openstreetmap.org>:

>
> 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 (outdated) copy.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 take before the outdated LF-routes got removed?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 Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201019/7e0f24b8/attachment-0001.htm>