Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Erik Johansson wrote: FTR I think you all should map for child strollers and add ramp=yes/no tag to steps.. :-) You may be kidding, but that actually is a useful feature for wheelchair access - wheelchair routing is a special case of pedestrian routing, that requires this sort of tag... And maybe child stroller users will use the wheelchair routing features... http://www.rollstuhlrouting.de/ruhr2010/ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wheelchair http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/keystats_wheelchair.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Jens Müller b...@tessarakt.de wrote: Am 03.05.2010 19:29, schrieb Richard Mann: I think routers would be better served if we identify good through routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and record them as relations, I thought a router is there to identify exactly that. Why do it manually? Because routing algorithms can't really deal with lots of multiple factors efficiently. Sometimes it's simpler just to give them a big hint: if you're heading in this general direction, this route works better than the others. It also matches what humans do - we learn certain pathways then tend to stick to them. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
I don't care very much about your routes, if they have to figure out in OSM or not and how to tag them. What I don't want is to see the roads, streets, avenues, boulevards cut at each intersection because some route is turning left or turning right at that point. I start to see this in Paris where we just have a few public transport and bicycle routes and it makes the 'normal' edition of the basic things very annoying. So please find a new method to identify ANY routes in OSM without splitting ways so we don't return to the old API's segments... Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
On 09.05.2010 13:18, Jens Müller wrote: Am 03.05.2010 13:31, schrieb Felix Hartmann: Subject: Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle What do you mean by Autorouting? Something else than just routing? Well when I say autorouting I mean that a computer or GPS calculates a route, and I can follow it, and I get proper turn instructions like: Turn right into abcstreet cycleroute def. Many people take routing for following tracks, so that would mean no automatic calculation of the ways. Hence I say autorouting to avoid confusion. I don't think navigation is a better term either for the above. ___ 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] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Hey Felix In OpenSatNav we use the phrase turn by turn routing or turn by turn navigation. Some call it real time or live navigation. Steve On 10 May 2010 15:05, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: On 09.05.2010 13:18, Jens Müller wrote: Am 03.05.2010 13:31, schrieb Felix Hartmann: Subject: Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle What do you mean by Autorouting? Something else than just routing? Well when I say autorouting I mean that a computer or GPS calculates a route, and I can follow it, and I get proper turn instructions like: Turn right into abcstreet cycleroute def. Many people take routing for following tracks, so that would mean no automatic calculation of the ways. Hence I say autorouting to avoid confusion. I don't think navigation is a better term either for the above. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Am 03.05.2010 13:31, schrieb Felix Hartmann: Subject: Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle What do you mean by Autorouting? Something else than just routing? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jens Müller b...@tessarakt.de wrote: Am 03.05.2010 19:29, schrieb Richard Mann: I think routers would be better served if we identify good through routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and record them as relations, I thought a router is there to identify exactly that. Why do it manually? Depending on how I feel different routes are good, for fast cycling you can take one route and for normal transport you take another. It's the same as taxi drivers take different routes depending on the traffic. FTR I think you all should map for child strollers and add ramp=yes/no tag to steps.. :-) -- /emj ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Am 09.05.2010 21:16, schrieb Erik Johansson: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jens Müllerb...@tessarakt.de wrote: Am 03.05.2010 19:29, schrieb Richard Mann: I think routers would be better served if we identify good through routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and record them as relations, I thought a router is there to identify exactly that. Why do it manually? Depending on how I feel different routes are good, for fast cycling you can take one route and for normal transport you take another. This will depend on characteristics of the ways, and you'll different routing settings to accomplish this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
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. 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. 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. [...] Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
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,
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Richard Mann wrote: I think routers would be better served if we identify good through routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and record them as relations, perhaps network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no. But Andy's a strict objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of approach. I lean on the objectivist side, but the boundary between objective and subjective may not be whether or not the route is signposted. Take for example how unmarked ski itineraries are tagged in OSM (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ski#Grooming) : piste:grooming=backcountry describes off-piste cross-country skiing, often referred to as backcountry touring, where tracks are made manually by skiers. Those are not actual pistes but mere itineraries - often not even signposted. They are every bit as virtual and as subjective as your favorite cycling thoroughfare: they are just the snow equivalent of an optimal path beaten by repetitive traffic. And the subjective tags may just be the equivalent of that for cycling. Still on the objectivist side... But I think I understand the subjectivist argument better. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:39AM +0200, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: After fifteen years of riding across Paris, I have developed a pretty good mental model of the city. I would not be capable of describing my routing algorithm offhand, but it features (in decreasing order of objectivity) distances, elevations, surfaces, waviness, congestion, shopping opportunities, motorists behavior and the likelihood of pretty That's the things that should be mapped - the facts. Recently I was thinking about that it may be possible to create a program that will calulate a cycling route for you based on those facts from the database and your preferences. Maybe the result maybe rated by the users and those rates are used in calculations. As a cyclist myself I understand the reason for such a proposal, but such marking will be highly subjective and I would prefer to have more objective facts about my route in the database and then make my decision, some automatic tools may help me with this. -- Anton Martchukov http://www.martchukov.com 0xFC4FBF28 96BC 3DAB 231A 7FCC 4F49 D783 9A69 65C1 FC4F BF28 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
You may be interested in the CycloPath project. http://cyclopath.org/ It is an OSM-like project for bicycle routes in Minneapolis - St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. A user can edit the cycle 'ways' and rate preferences for different ways. CycloPath can then generate preferable routes for that user. The code is under a modified Apache license and the data is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. David. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Anton Martchukov an...@martchukov.com wrote: On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:39AM +0200, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: After fifteen years of riding across Paris, I have developed a pretty good mental model of the city. I would not be capable of describing my routing algorithm offhand, but it features (in decreasing order of objectivity) distances, elevations, surfaces, waviness, congestion, shopping opportunities, motorists behavior and the likelihood of pretty That's the things that should be mapped - the facts. Recently I was thinking about that it may be possible to create a program that will calulate a cycling route for you based on those facts from the database and your preferences. Maybe the result maybe rated by the users and those rates are used in calculations. As a cyclist myself I understand the reason for such a proposal, but such marking will be highly subjective and I would prefer to have more objective facts about my route in the database and then make my decision, some automatic tools may help me with this. -- Anton Martchukov http://www.martchukov.com 0xFC4FBF28 96BC 3DAB 231A 7FCC 4F49 D783 9A69 65C1 FC4F BF28 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Even though there is a huge userbase in OSM that are avic cyclists, most of the information is still car centric, even though there are good intentions to change this. The problem is, we are living in a motorcar centric society, hence our whole road network is based on the idea to enable motorists to get quick from A to B. There are plenty of street types and access rights, only to enable motorists to go quicker. On motorroads, there are even laws to exclude any slow vehicles from even accessing them. There are laws and street signs to make slow motorrists (trucks / hgv) to stay on the right side, so that other motorrists who have nothing else in mind to go as quick as possible, even though this is not sustainable at all, overtake without being hindered. Do I think there is a problem with that? No, it's just reality. What I want however is that maybe in a more environmentally friendly future, such rules and infrastructure is also setup for cyclists - because noone likes going slow just because there is a lot of traffic. Be it as a pedestrian, as a cyclist, or as a horserider. There is no such regulation or infrastructure for any other mean of transport but motorists. There are no roads where slow cyclists, are forced to stay on the right side. There are probably only a handfull of cases where a pedestrian was ever fined for walking on a cycleway for slowing down bikers, and it would be unfair to do so, because the infrastructure is not built to have cycleways to cycle fast. Current Situation The overall situation is however not so bad. Every biker can in most places of the world find their preffered way with good local knowledge. This is where OSM should help. If inside OSM there is information about how welll a way is for what kind of cycling, then we could not change the system, but at least use those ways, that are already more than acceptable. the Sadly though many people in OSM are not able to leave their small focussed mind and cannot espace their caged mind and try to use a motorist perspective to do bicycle autorouting (e.g. CycleStreets http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CycleStreets or Cycle_routes/cyclability http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability). They want to use objective tags based on hard and accountable facts only, to describe how well a way is suited for cycling (e.g. Radverkehrsanlagen http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren ). They argue that we should have only verifyable keys and tags. They miss the big point, that for motorists the whole system is based not on objective but subjective thinking, and that therefore we can use objective keys to say, this is a primary road. If we only want to have objective tags, then I applaud anyone who goes out an puts a bot to delete the key highway=* and only use verfiable keys like, traffic, lanes, access rights and so on to describe it. Would this work? In my opinion never, because it is far too complicated and will not allow us to classify a way as primary or secondary or track. The highway=path versus highway=footway discussion of what key one should use, shows us that people want to be able to classify a way from their subjective position, and not fiddle with access rights and measurable facts. As well as we have already classed any way from a motorist driven perspective into a motorway or into a track, we will have to do so also from other perspectives. And Openstreetmap can be the tool to achieve this. Just a little example to make this point clear. In the wiki we have the guideline, to tag any non classified way - often without right of way for motorists - as highway=track if it is wide enough for a car to use it, or as path/footway if no car can use it. In an objective world we should instead describe this situation by surface, width, traffic, access_rights, and so on, and I support to do so. However the large majority wants to only say this is a footway, this is a track, this is a cycleway. What they really mean by this, and want to know however is. Would I like to cycle here. Would I like to drive my car here. Would I like to use this way to Walk from A to B. I'm in no way esoteric, and a highly objective and agnostic person, but there are things that one simply cannot describe using the old patterns and objective measurable facts to describe ways suitable for cycling. As our world is not made for cycling, it is much more difficult to describe and classify than to do such a thing for motorists! Therefore one can argue, that a single key like cyclability will not work, because every cyclist is different. However we do the same for motorists and it works so well (though not perfect) that it is common to use it. Autorouting for motorists would never work without taking account of the highway tag (which is as described before, not objective but subjective, and maybe even this subjectivity has made it
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
I think routers would be better served if we identify good through routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and record them as relations, perhaps network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no. But Andy's a strict objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of approach. Richard 2010/5/3 Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com: ... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
On 03.05.2010 19:29, Richard Mann wrote: I think routers would be better served if we identify good through routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and record them as relations, perhaps network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no. But Andy's a strict objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of approach. Richard 2010/5/3 Felix Hartmannextremecar...@googlemail.com: ... Well that is a second topic we should attack. Say for Mountainbiking official routes are mostly for trekking bikes, and not for mountainbikers. That is the reason that on gps-tour.info and other portals, Mountainbiking is the leading sport for tracks. Furhtermore in many countries mountainbiking is troubled by legally gray legislation, where it makes fun (Austria, Germany, parts of Italy, ). For street cycling routes are usally nice, but for mtbiking I couldn't care less of what is signposted. Additionally from legislation if you signpost a route, usually you are legally responsible for accidents if road conditions are bad. Hence noone want to signpost routes, because it would be too expensive to keep care of the ways and you have to pay expensive insurance (that is at least the case in Austria). So even places that make loads of advertisments for mountainbiking, will only officially signpost very few routes but put up descriptions of route proposals on their webpages. As I laid out, highway=primary is also subjective only. But this subjectivity has manifested in most peoples minds. My actual position on this is, I will write a wiki page, with a note to say bug off people against unofficial routes (because for mountainbiking they will in a matter of days be largely more than signposted routes), we will tag them route:unofficial:mtb=name and eveyone should give their favourite routes a hefty go. People are much more interested in nice routes than in difficulty, but according to tagwatch more than 25.000 ways have mtb:scale information, compared with maybe 50 mtb routes. If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes. Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route. If someone starts kicking them out, we could take out their submissions using a bot if they really feel like starting an edit war. It won't be much worse than in the Russian military discussion, will it? I don't give a damn what Andy or some other people say. For me the only rule in OSM and that counts, is that as long as you're not destructing the work of others (like say you put in paragliding routes that make editing a pain for everyone else) or largely irrelevant data that clutters the database so it becomes unusable, just let them do it (hey, in Austria we likely still have 20% of data junk from plan.at, and I don't even want to start about the crap data in the USA). The amount of information is nothing compared to all the remarks by bots and editors or on imports. And the benefit of getting more Mtbikers is huge, as hikers will never map the outdoors thoroughly, they are simply too slow and don't get in deep enough to the backcountry. Also for them cost of maps is not so important, as they are usually fine with 1-2 maps for a week. A mountainbiker doing a transalp, on the other hand, either buys 20-30 paper maps (not realistic), uses a copy of some Garmin maps he finds on the net (the forums about where to get Garmin maps have probably two to three times the traffic compared to forums with legal talk about Garmin GPS), downloads tracks from gpsies, gps-tour.info and Co, or and this is increasing steadily now, uses OSM maps (guessed 95% on Garmin GPS). The big problem is, that there are very few mountainbikers on the ML or Wiki. Most of them got into OSM because they used the maps. One year ago the search for Openstreetmap in the huge French Velo Vert forum (I think it is amongst the top 5 sport online forums worldwide if judged by either traffic and registered users) and it turned out 1 single topic (and no the search was working, I rechecked with google. Mountainbikers got on very late, because 2 years ago it was openSTREETmap, and only once streets got covered, people really started to show interest to map the outdoors. Still nowadays we lack a lot compared to official maps that is needed for orientation, and their is ONE single point why we got so many mountainbikers. And that is specific information like mtb:scale AND
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Felix Hartmann wrote: If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes. Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route. 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. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
On 03.05.2010 21:47, Ben Laenen wrote: Felix Hartmann wrote: If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes. Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route. 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. Greetings Ben 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). 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). We also map skiroutes, and they are usually not signposted, and only randomly officialy noted. We have keys for grooming status of skipistes, and if you look in OSM there is loads of other info that is not physical or where there is good reason to not include it. However the big strength of OSM is that we do have all this data, and with time and crosschecking data, also other user classes can make good use of it. One nice example is that we don't map whether a street is inside a city or not. We do however map source:maxspeed:CountryCode=local/urban. With this information we can indirectly find out if a street is inside or outside of city boundaries. Over time with some smartness you can make up for many missing keys, but this is not enough to exclude others. In future there will be a strong request for traffic information (oh yes, TMC is nothing better at all than unofficial routes, it is run by private companies and adding TMC serves no open data request at all - though I am sure people could argues pros here for pages too). Therefore I simply don't accept the point that we don't do something (as long as implementing it hurts noone). So having unofficial routes would have enough reason, and the only contra you bring is we don't do it because others do. Come on, at least try to be creative and give valid reasons why it should not be inside the OSM database. We don't do is is none. And that there are other websites for routes is even more lame. There are also other mapping data providers, but still we decided to go out and map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Felix Hartmann wrote: Sadly though many people in OSM are not able to leave their small focussed mind and cannot espace their caged mind and try to use a motorist perspective to do bicycle autorouting (e.g. CycleStreets http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CycleStreets or Cycle_routes/cyclability http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability). This is perhaps the most offensive thing I have ever read on these mailing lists, and I think you owe CycleStreets in particular - and those in OSM involved in cycle campaigning in general - an apology. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
On Tue, 4 May 2010, 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. -1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
Am 03.05.2010 21:12, schrieb Felix Hartmann: My actual position on this is, I will write a wiki page, with a note to say bug off people against unofficial routes (because for mountainbiking they will in a matter of days be largely more than signposted routes), we will tag them route:unofficial:mtb=name and eveyone should give their favourite routes a hefty go. People are much more interested in nice routes than in difficulty, but according to tagwatch more than 25.000 ways have mtb:scale information, compared with maybe 50 mtb routes. If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes. Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route. If someone starts kicking them out, we could take out their submissions using a bot if they really feel like starting an edit war. It won't be much worse than in the Russian military discussion, will it? I don't give a damn what Andy or some other people say. For me the only rule in OSM and that counts, is that as long as you're not destructing the work of others (like say you put in paragliding routes that make editing a pain for everyone else) or largely irrelevant data that clutters the database so it becomes unusable, just let them do it (hey, in Austria we likely still have 20% of data junk from plan.at, and I don't even want to start about the crap data in the USA). The amount of information is nothing compared to all the remarks by bots and editors or on imports. Hi Felix! Reading a lot of what you write makes me feel pretty sad. These some other people you are talking about actually spend several years of their life - before your appearance here - to bring OSM to something you seem to value enough for your ideas. Is it really your intention to start a bot edit war if they don't confirm to what I want? Is this really your way to spread your idea and *convince* people that you have a good idea? What I'm missing here is - respect of other peoples work. There seems to be a wide concensus in OSM that we don't want to tag something like this is my favourite route - at least that's basically what I understood what you want to do. I'm not saying this is a concensus set in stone for the next hundred years, but convincing people by telling them I will ask my 1000 MTB friends if you disagree and I will write a bot is very certainly *not* the way to change peoples mind. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
2010/5/3 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: I think routers would be better served if we identify good through routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and record them as relations, perhaps network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no. But Andy's a strict objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of approach. +1. I think this depends a lot on the surrounding: in the city you have different needs and characteristics (besides the surface traffic, traffic lights, pedestrians, together with width and decidated cycle-lanes/-tracks are more important) than in the countryside (good surface) / mountains (least elevation). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle
On 04.05.2010 01:41, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 03.05.2010 21:12, schrieb Felix Hartmann: My actual position on this is, I will write a wiki page, with a note to say bug off people against unofficial routes (because for mountainbiking they will in a matter of days be largely more than signposted routes), we will tag them route:unofficial:mtb=name and eveyone should give their favourite routes a hefty go. People are much more interested in nice routes than in difficulty, but according to tagwatch more than 25.000 ways have mtb:scale information, compared with maybe 50 mtb routes. If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes. Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route. If someone starts kicking them out, we could take out their submissions using a bot if they really feel like starting an edit war. It won't be much worse than in the Russian military discussion, will it? I don't give a damn what Andy or some other people say. For me the only rule in OSM and that counts, is that as long as you're not destructing the work of others (like say you put in paragliding routes that make editing a pain for everyone else) or largely irrelevant data that clutters the database so it becomes unusable, just let them do it (hey, in Austria we likely still have 20% of data junk from plan.at, and I don't even want to start about the crap data in the USA). The amount of information is nothing compared to all the remarks by bots and editors or on imports. Hi Felix! Reading a lot of what you write makes me feel pretty sad. These some other people you are talking about actually spend several years of their life - before your appearance here - to bring OSM to something you seem to value enough for your ideas. Arguing about how long someone is inside OSM, is an argument I cannot follow. Of course I have only been a member of OSM since 3 years, of wich the last 2 years I was more active than the first one. However putting prior achievement as a requirement for being allowed to voice opinion, is to me ultraconservative and hingering progress. If you ask me, who I think is the person who has done most for OSM, I would say Carsten Schwede aka Computerteddy and Steve Ratcliffe because without their work, OSM wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. If someones work brought a few thousand people to OSM then to me he is more important than someone who maybe mapped 10x as much. However this should be blody irrelevant. Is it really your intention to start a bot edit war if they don't confirm to what I want? Is this really your way to spread your idea and *convince* people that you have a good idea? What I'm missing here is - respect of other peoples work. I am perfectly respecting anyones work. All my proposals are about adding things that do not crash any existing structure. I'm just saying if someone started an edit war, one could respond with a bot war. There seems to be a wide concensus in OSM that we don't want to tag something like this is my favourite route - at least that's basically what I understood what you want to do. Well I and many others have understood this differently. I understood we should map everything that makes the maps better, and if it does without harming anyone, so lets rock. OSM will become more and more a place where the largest share of information (take History) is not interesting to the largest part of the users, and the ability for minorities to add their data into OSM is what brought big success. It is definitely not classification of data for motorcar users, nor quality of data, nor quantity of data, because in all three points we are far behind the competition. The point where OSM stands out, is the richness of attributes. Therfore I can't see the smallest valid reason, why someone should be against including this is my favourite route. Even if every OSM participant adds relations for his favourite 1000 routes (which will not happen), the amount of data stays very small. There shall be no confusion with routes that exist in reality by using unofficial:route=mtb. The alternative is to simply not namespace it and go out and tag your favourite routes using keys just like it were signposted routes and you will cause harm. Just like people that put maxspeed=de:local instead of keeping maxspeed and adding soure:maxspeed:de=local will delete information. However from routes written in a booklet
