Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
(Just some musings, not sure I have much to contribute to this thread) On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: Well I think route=mtb is more or less a consensus. Differentiation to route=bicycle is in 99% of all routes clear. It's more on the Good! route=bicycle side where they have to think about differentiations on trekking routes, commuter routes (routes for tourists vs commuters have completely different objectives), Do they? I can think of some rail trails in my area that are used by bike tourists, recreational day rides, and commuters. But anyway, that's not really the topic. What we have to think about are inofficial routes. OSM would really profit if nice and popular Transalp routes are included into the database (we are free mtbikers, we don't need no stinking signs to tell us that we are using a mtb route). However I do think we could should have some differentiation between mtb routes that are flagged out (be it only in official tourist brochures, be it on signs,...) and mtb routes that are not made by official authorities but by users (e.g. my friday afternoon workout route, my favourite transalp route). Ys...to a point. OSM has primarily focused on mapping stuff that everyone agrees is there: signposted routes, physical roads etc. But whereas Google Maps has a nicely integrated My Maps feature, there isn't a single, central way to incorporate user data, or information that is subjective or only interesting to a small community. If you were going to incorporate routes that were invented by a club or one person, but that weren't signposted, you'd want to do it in a way that wouldn't pollute the main database. So people could download just the normal database, or database+mtb routes. Personally, I would love the millions of upload your GPS trace sites to coalesce into a smaller number of richer resources that tied in well with OSM. It's very frustrating that traces that people have uploaded are so dispersed. It's also annoying that there's very little network effect: most of the sites seem to treat every trace as totally independent, and never think about ways to link them up. Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local) from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional) from A to B to C. Do we? For starters, that seems pretty arbitrary: there are routes that some people would do in one day, that others would do in several. And can't you tell from the distance anyway? Just to answer how many regional routes I know, I do know a lot of regional and even official multiple days routes in the European Alps. Cool. Now that I think about it, I researched and nearly did such a route starting from Innsbruck, but I had too much gear in the end and it wasn't feasible. And there is no problem of all if several routes use the same way, I think by now it has become clear to most that routes will have to be using relations, because otherwise we get into trouble with multiple values for unique keys. I think the network key would be good to be used for differentiation of the different routes. We simply have to think about unified tagging so that renderers know what kind of route they are analyzing. Nod. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local) from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional) from A to B to C. Do we? For starters, that seems pretty arbitrary: there are routes that some people would do in one day, that others would do in several. And can't you tell from the distance anyway? there are well known trails in australia like that, and it is common for people to do them as day walks or rides and over a number of weeks actually cover the entire trail. so dividing them up in into single day and multiday is quite artificial ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On 17.01.2010 11:43, Liz wrote: On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local) from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional) from A to B to C. Do we? For starters, that seems pretty arbitrary: there are routes that some people would do in one day, that others would do in several. And can't you tell from the distance anyway? there are well known trails in australia like that, and it is common for people to do them as day walks or rides and over a number of weeks actually cover the entire trail. so dividing them up in into single day and multiday is quite artificial Well then we should have some other difference key that will allow differentiation between shorter and longer routes (so renderers can put long routes into lower resolutions, than the 50km 2000m altitude+ plus routes). Maybe let's have routes with less than 3000m vertical ascent (typical 1 day routes), up to 10,000m and over 10,000m vertical ascent. Or maybe better we should have keys for length of a route (gps tracks often cut corners, pieces of the relation may be missing) and a key for total vertical ascent/descent). This way I can render long distance mtb routes / multiple days routes more prominent than one day routes. Furthermore we really need to have a seperation between routes with the same town as start/end place and routes which are not intended for sleeping/staying at the same place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On 17.01.2010 11:43, Liz wrote: On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local) from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional) from A to B to C. Do we? For starters, that seems pretty arbitrary: there are routes that some people would do in one day, that others would do in several. And can't you tell from the distance anyway? there are well known trails in australia like that, and it is common for people to do them as day walks or rides and over a number of weeks actually cover the entire trail. so dividing them up in into single day and multiday is quite artificial ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk I have started a wiki page here to gather thoughts: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keys_for_relation:route For the topic of network=mtb and differentiation I think we should wait a few days to see what new keys are needed in general for relation=route and then start a discussion (well especially your own favourite non signposted routes will need some thought - because this would really boost usefulness of osm for mountaibikers). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: If renderer XYZ renders amenity=llibrary with a library icon (to catch a common typo), then we could document that somewhere on a page about renderer XYX. However we definitely should not document this as a valid tag on the amenity page. I'm sick of stupid flamewars, so I'll just say, I disagree, all information about a tag is relevant, in the absence of a central authority, and leave it that. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: Network=mtb makes not much sense in my eye (and was never discussed, approved, proposed...) as we can't differentiate then anymore between local and regional mtb routes. The question therefore is, what values do we want to use for network? Should we use ncn/rcn/lcn (because this is already quite commonly used for route=mtb and the differentitation to cycle routes can be done because we use route=mtb and not route=bicycle) or maybe nmn/rmn/lmn (this would go in accoradance with ncn Cycle Network and nwn Walking Network), or maybe go without accronyms and use network=regional_mtb, network=local_mtb . How many places have local/regional/national mountain biking networks? How would you tag routes that are both hiking and mountain biking? Would a local mtb network be something like a set of trails that link to each other at a ski resort or dedicated mountain bike park? Or perhaps even towns that are lucky enough to have mtb trails used as a form of transport... The general idea that mountain biking routes should be route=mtb, not route=bicycle, does seem sound to me; the needs of mountain bikers and normal cyclists are quite different and don't overlap much. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On Saturday 16 January 2010 13:59:44 Steve Bennett wrote: I'm sick of stupid flamewars, so I'll just say, I disagree, all information about a tag is relevant, in the absence of a central authority, and leave it that. If you are sick of what you call stupid flamewars, then you should think more and write less. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: If you are sick of what you call stupid flamewars, then you should think more and write less. Yes, this is very much the approach I intend to take. We could probably all heed the advice. A moderator on the list probably wouldn't go astray either. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On 16.01.2010 14:04, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: Network=mtb makes not much sense in my eye (and was never discussed, approved, proposed...) as we can't differentiate then anymore between local and regional mtb routes. The question therefore is, what values do we want to use for network? Should we use ncn/rcn/lcn (because this is already quite commonly used for route=mtb and the differentitation to cycle routes can be done because we use route=mtb and not route=bicycle) or maybe nmn/rmn/lmn (this would go in accoradance with ncn Cycle Network and nwn Walking Network), or maybe go without accronyms and use network=regional_mtb, network=local_mtb . How many places have local/regional/national mountain biking networks? How would you tag routes that are both hiking and mountain biking? Would a local mtb network be something like a set of trails that link to each other at a ski resort or dedicated mountain bike park? Or perhaps even towns that are lucky enough to have mtb trails used as a form of transport... The general idea that mountain biking routes should be route=mtb, not route=bicycle, does seem sound to me; the needs of mountain bikers and normal cyclists are quite different and don't overlap much. Steve Well I think route=mtb is more or less a consensus. Differentiation to route=bicycle is in 99% of all routes clear. It's more on the route=bicycle side where they have to think about differentiations on trekking routes, commuter routes (routes for tourists vs commuters have completely different objectives), routes for race cyclists,. What we have to think about are inofficial routes. OSM would really profit if nice and popular Transalp routes are included into the database (we are free mtbikers, we don't need no stinking signs to tell us that we are using a mtb route). However I do think we could should have some differentiation between mtb routes that are flagged out (be it only in official tourist brochures, be it on signs,...) and mtb routes that are not made by official authorities but by users (e.g. my friday afternoon workout route, my favourite transalp route). Often official routes are lame anyhow because they have to be 100% legal. This is especially true for Germany and Austria, stringent in parts of Italy (you not only face hefty fines, but the chance to be fined is also big) and less of a problem in France or Switzerland where laws related to mtbiking are much friendlier and not dictated by the green dwarf and his Jeep. Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local) from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional) from A to B to C. Just to answer how many regional routes I know, I do know a lot of regional and even official multiple days routes in the European Alps. And there is no problem of all if several routes use the same way, I think by now it has become clear to most that routes will have to be using relations, because otherwise we get into trouble with multiple values for unique keys. I think the network key would be good to be used for differentiation of the different routes. We simply have to think about unified tagging so that renderers know what kind of route they are analyzing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Adrian Moisey adr...@changeover.za.netwrote: I've managed to get pieces of it to render on the cycle map: http://osm.org/go/kaIGiwl?layers=00B0FTF' Interestingly this appears as a GREEN cycle route, presumably because it's tagged route=bicycle+network=mtb. I wish these things were documented a bit more obviously. I've added network=mtb to the Relation table on the Cycle Routes wiki page, as a start. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On 15.01.2010 11:22, Richard Mann wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Adrian Moisey adr...@changeover.za.net mailto:adr...@changeover.za.net wrote: I've managed to get pieces of it to render on the cycle map: http://osm.org/go/kaIGiwl?layers=00B0FTF' Interestingly this appears as a GREEN cycle route, presumably because it's tagged route=bicycle+network=mtb. I wish these things were documented a bit more obviously. I've added network=mtb to the Relation table on the Cycle Routes wiki page, as a start. Richard I took it out again. I will be too confusing to have network=mtb. a) there are also networks for mtb routes. (e.g. Alpentour Austria, a 21 day mtb route going from Vienna, over Lower Austria into Styria ) b) route=mtb is already in wide use. Even though there could be borderline cases of what is a supereasy mtb route, or a bicycle route along very badly maintained tracks the decision should usually be easy. At least in Europe the route maintainer will allways classify as bicycle or mtb route. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: I took it out again. I will be too confusing to have network=mtb. a) there are also networks for mtb routes. (e.g. Alpentour Austria, a 21 day mtb route going from Vienna, over Lower Austria into Styria ) b) route=mtb is already in wide use. Even though there could be borderline cases of what is a supereasy mtb route, or a bicycle route along very badly maintained tracks the decision should usually be easy. At least in Europe the route maintainer will allways classify as bicycle or mtb route. Suggestion: if the Cycle Map supports a given tag, then we should document that fact. Now, whether we want to deprecate it is a separate question, but removing correct, relevant information doesn't really help the cause. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On Saturday 16 January 2010 00:47:43 Steve Bennett wrote: Suggestion: if the Cycle Map supports a given tag, then we should document that fact. Now, whether we want to deprecate it is a separate question, but removing correct, relevant information doesn't really help the cause. If renderer XYZ renders amenity=llibrary with a library icon (to catch a common typo), then we could document that somewhere on a page about renderer XYX. However we definitely should not document this as a valid tag on the amenity page. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
On 16.01.2010 01:27, Cartinus wrote: On Saturday 16 January 2010 00:47:43 Steve Bennett wrote: Suggestion: if the Cycle Map supports a given tag, then we should document that fact. Now, whether we want to deprecate it is a separate question, but removing correct, relevant information doesn't really help the cause. If renderer XYZ renders amenity=llibrary with a library icon (to catch a common typo), then we could document that somewhere on a page about renderer XYX. However we definitely should not document this as a valid tag on the amenity page. I have had some e-mails about this with Richard Mann too. Network=mtb makes not much sense in my eye (and was never discussed, approved, proposed...) as we can't differentiate then anymore between local and regional mtb routes. The question therefore is, what values do we want to use for network? Should we use ncn/rcn/lcn (because this is already quite commonly used for route=mtb and the differentitation to cycle routes can be done because we use route=mtb and not route=bicycle) or maybe nmn/rmn/lmn (this would go in accoradance with ncn Cycle Network and nwn Walking Network), or maybe go without accronyms and use network=regional_mtb, network=local_mtb . ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
Hi I'm having troubles getting a cycle route to render. The relation is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/367273 I've managed to get pieces of it to render on the cycle map: http://osm.org/go/kaIGiwl?layers=00B0FTF' But not the whole thing. I assume its because the route goes back on itself? Can anybody provide assistance? Thanks Adrian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render
Seems fine to me. Just hasn't been rerendered on all zoom-levels yet. (Zoom-level 13 seems to be correct) Konrad 2010/1/15 Adrian Moisey adr...@changeover.za.net: Hi I'm having troubles getting a cycle route to render. The relation is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/367273 I've managed to get pieces of it to render on the cycle map: http://osm.org/go/kaIGiwl?layers=00B0FTF' But not the whole thing. I assume its because the route goes back on itself? Can anybody provide assistance? Thanks Adrian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
