[OSM-talk] Relation/Routes and Hikes in open Country

[simon at mungewell.org]

> I'd define it slightly differently - its do we want *subjective*
> routes in OSM? I don't think anyone is arguing that notable
> *objective* routes, like the Pennine Way in the UK or the Appalachian
> Way in the US can certainly be included as a route.
>

Hi all,
I'm going to be a bit provocative here, please bear with me....

1) At what point does a route change from being 'subjective' to 'objective'?
2) 'Open Street Map is a map of everything'.
3) 'Your map, your way'.


I understand the concern that we don't want the official map to be
saturated with additional non-official (whatever that means) routes,
however I don't think that it is a reason to prevent people/organisations
adding there own relation/routes to the data base.

At present the offical map does not render the relation/routes, when it
does it can limit the ones it shows by using the operator and/or network
tags.

In the case of Bob Spirko, there is a huge resource of write-up and photos
on his website. I believe that it is a benefit to add this information to
the OSM database and (in my opinion) relation routes are the best way to
do this. The first batch of trails are actually based around those
published in a book, does this make them 'objective'?

For OSM this get us additional ways on the ground, showing footpaths and
tracks on the ground. The use of relations removes the surplus naming of
ways (ie. a footpath would not have to be tagged 'Anderson Peak Trail' for
example) and other marking of non-physical things.

For Bob Spirko (or whomever) it gives the ability to render maps showing
his routes (which can be done offline with osmarender or some other
scheme) or to make GPS compilations for navigation.


Just my thoughts.
Cheers,
Mungewell.