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

[Dave Stubbs]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:52 PM,  <simon at mungewell.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>


I've not got much problem with "notable" subjective routes being
stored in the database. Obviously "notable" is a vague moving target,
but what I mean here is that it's not a completely arbitrary
concoction that no-one else has ever heard of. If we have a well known
person writing books on walks etc then I see no problem in adding
these to the DB.

The problem is how you add them.

A route relation, as in type=route, route=foot, has so far implied a
signed, "official" route. This is what is being referred to as an
objective route -- the key feature is generally that it is maintained
by someone (the operator). For the subjective routes where someone has
gone and looked for a nice walk, wrote it down and published it, this
probably isn't the case. I'd rather the former weren't diluted by the
latter, with no easy way to distinguish them.

What I'd suggest is that you just change some of the tag names:
   type=suggested_route
   route=foot
   suggested_by=Bob Spirko

Then everyone knows where they stand, and what this represents.
I'm sure there are people convinced this is a bad idea... and if the
goal is to avoid conversations about what is considered "notable" then
I'd probably take their point.

Dave