[OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 04.05.2010 11:40, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>    
>> On 03.05.2010 21:47, Ben Laenen wrote:
>>      
>>> Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones
>>> that are signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your
>>> route suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM
>>> database.
>>>        
>> Well there is a big reason to do so. You cannot import such routes and
>> map then onto existing streets. Also no such sites feature a tagging
>> interface that is accessible with the tracks. They will not help
>> autorouting at all. The data therefore has to be in OSM to be used (a
>> parallel database would be stupid, because due to the small amount of
>> data would IMHO cause more traffic and data growth than doing it
>> directly in OSM).
>>      
> I agree that it's tricky to link route data to the proper ways in OSM one the
> two were separated, since lots of things could happen to the OSM data. But is
> that a reason to put everyone's favourite route in OSM, just because it would
> be "easier"?
>
> You'd actually make it much harder to map in OSM, because many mappers still
> cannot handle relations well and route relations regularly get broken by these
> inexperienced mappers. Not to mention the fact that say if a crossroad would
> be replaced by a roundabout, we get a huge extra burden to map everything
> correctly if that place was so popular that a few hundred of these routes were
> crossing it and you'd have to split that roundabout up in a lot of small
> pieces just to be able to map all routes correctly with proper
> forward/backward roles.
>    
That is a valid point, and I don't like the answer its strictly an 
editor problem
> And who'll be maintaining someone's favourite route? Would I be allowed to
> take the route and slightly adjust it so it would be a little more scenic? Or
> should I then add my own route as well which would then be 99% the same as the
> first one, because I'm not allowed to destroy his favourite route by changing
> it slightly? Would someone be even allowed to delete a favourite route, or are
> we stuck with it forever if someone adds it in OSM? Also, I'm personally
> already discussing enough objective things, that I don't want to end up in
> long conversations where I also have to discuss some route which in my eyes
> doesn't make sense, but someone else found was pretty nice, but wasn't aware
> of some better alternatives for example.
>
> At least with signposted routes you don't end up with these discussions about
> subjective things. There it's clear what needs to be mapped.
>
>    
Well here I am partly with you. We are more and more getting into social 
web, and OSM should not try to exclude itself. So for as long as the 
editor problem is not solved, we should make up the requirement that a 
route has to be published and documented somewhere (and of course put a 
big note not to infringe copyrights).  Documentation can be either in 
signposts, CCBYSA compatible brochures, blogs, or wikis.

Wiki format would actually be the best. Because we could start building 
community mapped relations. Meaning not only the relation itself is from 
multiple persons, but also the description, additional pictures, and so 
on is from community. It's actually a project I long had in mind but 
never got around doing. Because I simply have great problems 
understanding that we work on a really innovative project, but do our 
best to avoid recent developments (blogging and social networks are not 
new anymore, but have become part of many peoples life).

I am pretty sure, that 99% percent of OSM users would be fine with 
relations that are not signposted, if there exists CCBYSA compatible 
documentation.
>    
>> We did not yet do so. But we also map other unofficial unphysical things
>> like boundaries (which are in no way public domain in Austria or
>> Germany, you are allowed to have information where you are, but not
>> where the boundary is running).
>>      
> I doubt you really cannot see a difference between boundaries (which are by no
> means unofficial by the way, they're very strictly defined by authorities) and
> a route someone likes very much.
>
>    
Yes they are damn official, but not public. At least not down to 
community level. If you buy ground in Austria, you will have to pay at 
least a 3 digit sum to have cartographers decide which part of your 
property belongs to which community if you get remotely (say 10m) close 
to community boundary. Yes the boundaries are official, however the 
documentation about where the boundary is, is not public domain, but 
copyrighted. Only in certain cases it will be free to access this 
information and you will not get the boundary itself, but only into 
which community a point falls (e.g. if you need to know where your baby 
was born for the passport, or if there is an accident and there is 
trouble deciding which legislation applies). This is the same in many 
other countries (because a boundaries are rrom tradition not defined in 
place, but based on written rules, like in the middle of the river, or a 
straight line from Summit X to big old oak tree).
>    
>> [...]
>>      
> Greetings
> Ben
>