Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On 23 February 2010 17:12, Steve Bennett wrote: > But surely "foot=designated" is the correct tag, particularly for > tracks which explicitly ban every other mode of transport. > > However I should point out that "highway=path foot=designated" is > (according to mapnik at least) equivalent to "highway=footway" which > it says not to use... There is a few zealots, mostly in the euro-centric area of the world that think highway=footway isn't "good enough" because it doesn't indicate the legal standing. However highway=path proposal attempted to make highway=footway redundent, but it was voted against. In the mean time people have been running about "cleaning up" wiki references, which most didn't agree to in the first place. foot=designated just means that's the primary purpose, not that everything else is disallowed, in this case I usually tag highway=footway and the implication is bikes etc are disallowed. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Not too important yet, but it would certainly be good to get all > walking tracks using route relations, and to be roughly consistent > about what is IWN/NWN/RWN/LWN. I agree that we don't have international hiking routes (IWN) in Australia. I thought it intuitive that a national route (NWN) would cross a state border and be a significantly long walk. Basically, that's the Bicentennial National Trail. Regional routes (RWN) would then be walks within a state, and be significant within that state. These would include: Bibbulmun Track (WA) Cape to Cape Track (WA) Great North Walk (NSW) Great Ocean Walk (Vic) Great South West Walk (Vic) Heysen Trail (SA) Hume & Hovell Walking Track (NSW) Larapinta Trail (NT) Overland Track (Tas) Then local routes would include shorter walks like the collection of Misty Mountains walks in northern Queensland. The OSM tagging guidelines for hiking routes aren't especially helpful, but seem to me to suggest the above scheme. "Specify the network as an international route, a national route, a regional route, or a local route." If a region is a state, then I'll agree that we have some big regions in Aus. That's balanced by our lower population, and hiking route, density compared with Europe. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Not too important yet, but it would certainly be good to get all > walking tracks using route relations, and to be roughly consistent > about what is IWN/NWN/RWN/LWN. Some further thoughts on this: I forgot about the Australian Alps Walking Track, which is national, spanning significant distances in both NSW and Vic. But part of that track goes through wilderness areas, where track markers aren't permitted. Should we be even mapping those sections, thereby helping create an erosion/"localised overuse" threat? I also think that many shorter routes don't warrant a route relation, mainly because they can be adequately represented by a single way. And many short routes that do warrant a route relation certainly aren't significant enough to warrant a "lwn" tag. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On 23 February 2010 19:46, John Henderson wrote: > But part of that track goes through wilderness areas, where track > markers aren't permitted. Should we be even mapping those sections, > thereby helping create an erosion/"localised overuse" threat? Are they marked on official maps, or at least maps easily accessible to those likely to use those walking tracks? >From a life threatening/emergency worker point of view, having them mapped could mean they potentially save a life. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
John Smith wrote: > On 23 February 2010 19:46, John Henderson wrote: >> But part of that track goes through wilderness areas, where track >> markers aren't permitted. Should we be even mapping those sections, >> thereby helping create an erosion/"localised overuse" threat? > > Are they marked on official maps, or at least maps easily accessible > to those likely to use those walking tracks? Yes, some. But in extremely low resolution so that any two parties are most unlikely to pick the same exact route. That's very unlike the OSM situation, where the resolution allows an exactly identical path to be taken every time. >From a life threatening/emergency worker point of view, having them > mapped could mean they potentially save a life. If they're not confident, or travelling in a small or inexperienced party, they should be carrying a PLB/EPIRB. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On 23 February 2010 20:09, John Henderson wrote: > That's very unlike the OSM situation, where the resolution allows an > exactly identical path to be taken every time. If there is a lot of tree cover GPS will experince the same issue as well. > If they're not confident, or travelling in a small or inexperienced > party, they should be carrying a PLB/EPIRB. Since when has common sense gotten people stuck up on mountains in extreme weather without proper equipment? :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:29 PM, John Henderson wrote: > I agree that we don't have international hiking routes (IWN) in Australia. > > I thought it intuitive that a national route (NWN) would cross a state > border and be a significantly long walk. Basically, that's the Bicentennial > National Trail. I think a little intuition can be a very dangerous thing. Remember, the name "national walking route" is a UK term, reflecting a particular way of administering trails by their government. Essentially I think we can treat these four levels as just four levels of significance to assign as we please, just as we have "highway=primary,secondary,tertiary". The rule about crossing a state boundary...well, that will almost never happen. Same with bike paths, our state boundaries are all in the middle of nowhere. So that's just not useful. > > Regional routes (RWN) would then be walks within a state, and be significant > within that state. These would include: > > Bibbulmun Track (WA) > Cape to Cape Track (WA) > Great North Walk (NSW) > Great Ocean Walk (Vic) > Great South West Walk (Vic) > Heysen Trail (SA) > Hume & Hovell Walking Track (NSW) > Larapinta Trail (NT) > Overland Track (Tas) I originally put the Overland track as a RWN, then switched to NWN. One consequence of this it is shows up at lower zoom levels on lonvia's hiking map. Since there are so few long distance hiking trails in Australia (compared to, say, central europe), we should (IMHO) be fairly liberal with the higher designations, as there is no danger of overcrowding the map. > If a region is a state, then I'll agree that we have some big regions in > Aus. Yer, much bigger than most European countries. >That's balanced by our lower population, and hiking route, density > compared with Europe. Yep, arguments for greater use of NWN etc. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:46 PM, John Henderson wrote: > I forgot about the Australian Alps Walking Track, which is national, > spanning significant distances in both NSW and Vic. Yeah, it goes from Walhalla to Canberra, about 650km. By comparison, one version of the Camino de Santiago is 800km. The long-distance European walking paths seem to range from about 3-10,000km. So the AAWT would be a shortish international walking path, or a long national one. > > But part of that track goes through wilderness areas, where track markers > aren't permitted. Should we be even mapping those sections, thereby helping > create an erosion/"localised overuse" threat? Absolutely we should. Routes like that appear on maps. For example, there's a part of the Overland Track where John Chapman publishes an alternative route around Lake St Clair. There's no track, and his map uses a different kind of line to indicate "route" rather than "track". Any route that we publish would probably have long straight line sections, so the paths that actual walkers would follow would vary significantly from that anyway, depending on local vegetation etc. > I also think that many shorter routes don't warrant a route relation, mainly > because they can be adequately represented by a single way. The growing trend is that renderers treat route relations as "more significant" than mere ways. And I'm not sure your statement is true anyway - a single bridge, set of steps or even change in surface (eg, gravel to dirt) would need the way to be split to be fully mapped. > And many short routes that do warrant a route relation certainly aren't > significant enough to warrant a "lwn" tag. Yeah, probably. How can we define "significant" though? The fact that renderers assign zoom levels to them is actually sort of a good starting point: is a route significant enough to know about when you're viewing a) a country b) a state c) a region d) a national park e) a locality within a national park f) a campsite. IMHO, the overland, the AAWT, the lara pinta etc all easily satisfy a). A trail like the Pinnacle Walk (roughly 4 hours return iirc) in the Grampians will satisfy d) but probably not c). A short interpretive walk may satisfy e) but struggle to meet d). It all depends how many other trails there are at that level, how close they are, etc. (Just thinking out loud here a bit, I'm not committed to any of this.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On 24 February 2010 09:33, Steve Bennett wrote: > The rule about crossing a state boundary...well, that will almost > never happen. Same with bike paths, our state boundaries are all in > the middle of nowhere. So that's just not useful. Speak for yourself, the Qld/NSW border along the coast is fairly heavily populated, although this is the exception not the rule I guess. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:49 AM, John Smith wrote: > Speak for yourself, the Qld/NSW border along the coast is fairly > heavily populated, although this is the exception not the rule I > guess. Thank you for that insightful, helpful and utterly relevant contribution to this conversation, which was really worth everyone's time reading. Thanks to this contribution, the thread was improved, and the signal-noise ratio of the entire mailing list was improved substantially. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > I think a little intuition can be a very dangerous thing. Remember, > the name "national walking route" is a UK term, reflecting a > particular way of administering trails by their government. > Essentially I think we can treat these four levels as just four levels > of significance to assign as we please, just as we have > "highway=primary,secondary,tertiary". Then our intuitions differ. Call it our "thinking" if you prefer that term. Our own government's way of splitting up the country works just fine with the OSM definitions. For me, the demarcation problem is largely solved. NWNs (of which there are two that I'm aware of) are clearly distinguished from RWNs. Otherwise, what distinguishes a NWR from a RWN is a grey area indeed. And any attempt to define what's what by fiat necessarily has a lot of arbitrariness about it. > The rule about crossing a state boundary...well, that will almost > never happen. Same with bike paths, our state boundaries are all in > the middle of nowhere. So that's just not useful. I think it is useful. We're used to it with road networks, with national routes and state routes. Sure, hiking trails are shorter, but that doesn't mean it's unworkable. > I originally put the Overland track as a RWN, then switched to NWN. > One consequence of this it is shows up at lower zoom levels on > lonvia's hiking map. Since there are so few long distance hiking > trails in Australia (compared to, say, central europe), we should > (IMHO) be fairly liberal with the higher designations, as there is no > danger of overcrowding the map. I'm not going to say anything about tagging for the r... (oops, nearly did). I am, of course, prepared to be voted down. I too am just putting my opinion into the debate. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Absolutely we should. Routes like that appear on maps. For example, > there's a part of the Overland Track where John Chapman publishes an > alternative route around Lake St Clair. There's no track, and his map > uses a different kind of line to indicate "route" rather than "track". But is it a wilderness area, where route markers are prohibited? > Any route that we publish would probably have long straight line > sections, so the paths that actual walkers would follow would vary > significantly from that anyway, depending on local vegetation etc. They'd obviously gravitate towards the route showing on the GPS in their hand. Now if only we could include an area as part of a route. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Henderson wrote: > I think it is useful. We're used to it with road networks, with > national routes and state routes. Sure, hiking trails are shorter, but > that doesn't mean it's unworkable. Just so we're on the same page, I understand you as proposing that we use NWN for the AAWT and the BNT, and nothing else. Zero IWT, two NWN, lots of RWN and LWN. I think we can do better. >> I originally put the Overland track as a RWN, then switched to NWN. >> One consequence of this it is shows up at lower zoom levels on >> lonvia's hiking map. Since there are so few long distance hiking >> trails in Australia (compared to, say, central europe), we should >> (IMHO) be fairly liberal with the higher designations, as there is no >> danger of overcrowding the map. > > I'm not going to say anything about tagging for the r... (oops, nearly did). I won't say anything about how it's valid to use current renderer practice to inform the use of tags in the absence of anything more authoritative, until now. >But is it a wilderness area, where route markers are prohibited? Dunno. I suspect it's fairly well trafficked anyway. >They'd obviously gravitate towards the route showing on the GPS in their hand. This is pretty much OT, but from the few people I've talked to, following a GPS while on this kind of trek is not yet standard practice. And I really think we can cross the bridge of harm caused by OSM data when we get to it... (By which I mean, sure, interesting topic for discussion, I just don't want to debate it here.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Just so we're on the same page, I understand you as proposing that we > use NWN for the AAWT and the BNT, and nothing else. Zero IWT, two NWN, > lots of RWN and LWN. Yes, until we develop other national trails. > I think we can do better. I don't. When the Bicentennial National Trail got named, the meaning of "national" was clearly understood. It should have the same meaning in the expression "national walking network". I see no compelling reason for it not to. I see two arguments raised for relaxing the meaning of "national": . The number of NWNs and RWNs is out of balance, with there being many more RWNs than NWNs. . NWNs render at a lower zoom level than RWNs. I reckon these arguments are trivial and inconsequential compared with confusion created by using the term "national" in some watered-down way. > I won't say anything about how it's valid to use current renderer > practice to inform the use of tags in the absence of anything more > authoritative, until now. That's as comprehensible as something I'd write on a bad day :) > This is pretty much OT, but from the few people I've talked to, > following a GPS while on this kind of trek is not yet standard > practice. And I really think we can cross the bridge of harm caused by > OSM data when we get to it... (By which I mean, sure, interesting > topic for discussion, I just don't want to debate it here.) When it does get debated, bear in mind that the incentive to use a GPS unit for bush navigation is going to be greater in an area where track markers are not permitted. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:54 AM, John Henderson wrote: > I reckon these arguments are trivial and inconsequential compared with > confusion created by using the term "national" in some watered-down way. That's basically how I see your position: the value of sticking to a strict reading of "national" and "international" is much lower than the practical benefits of using the four layers of network in a way that is comparable with other countries. I see it as similar to the "café" debate we had a while ago: do we define a term like "amenity=cafe" in terms of absolutes (serves coffee and sit down meals, but little or no alcohol), or in culturally relative terms (what do locals understand by "café"). If you stick with absolute definitions, you get wild imbalances - maybe France has no "cafés" while Portugal has tens of thousands or something. And in the same way, Australia has almost no IWN/NWN walking routes by the absolute definition, but if the relative definition is "the country's most significant and longest trails", then we have something more useful. Your position is certainly not without merit, but let me ask you a couple of questions: 1) What are the tangible benefits of NWN meaning the same thing in Austria as in Australia? 2) Given that you are essentially proposing that all hiking trails (bar two) in Australia be marked either LWN/RWN, do you not think it's a disadvantage to only have two levels rather than four? 3) Under your preferred option, lonvia.de would only render two trails when viewing a map of the whole of Australia. Do you see that as an implementation detail (ie, lonvia should be fixed), an unfortunate reflection of reality, or something different? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > That's basically how I see your position: the value of sticking to a > strict reading of "national" and "international" is much lower than > the practical benefits of using the four layers of network in a way > that is comparable with other countries. I see it as similar to the > "café" debate we had a while ago: do we define a term like > "amenity=cafe" in terms of absolutes (serves coffee and sit down > meals, but little or no alcohol), or in culturally relative terms > (what do locals understand by "café"). If you stick with absolute > definitions, you get wild imbalances - maybe France has no "cafés" > while Portugal has tens of thousands or something. And in the same > way, Australia has almost no IWN/NWN walking routes by the absolute > definition, but if the relative definition is "the country's most > significant and longest trails", then we have something more useful. > > Your position is certainly not without merit, but let me ask you a > couple of questions: > 1) What are the tangible benefits of NWN meaning the same thing in > Austria as in Australia? A major advantage I see is little or no inconsistency in the way different people tag routes. There will inevitably be disagreement about the RWN/LWN decision point, but that's better than having confusion about NWN/RWN as well. > 2) Given that you are essentially proposing that all hiking trails > (bar two) in Australia be marked either LWN/RWN, do you not think it's > a disadvantage to only have two levels rather than four? That's two levels for the rest. No, I thought this through carefully months ago, and didn't think there'd be any disadvantage whatsoever. It's not that we're out of balance in some important way by having our trail numbers stacked heavily on the RWN and LWN side. In fact, a lot of those eyeing Aussie walking tracks online will be European backpackers, and they'll surely expect to see what I'm proposing. > 3) Under your preferred option, lonvia.de would only render two trails > when viewing a map of the whole of Australia. Do you see that as an > implementation detail (ie, lonvia should be fixed), an unfortunate > reflection of reality, or something different? Frankly, I see this as no problem at all. When I first visited the site, It took be about two seconds flat to twig to that aspect. I think it's fine like it is. You've got to zoom in considerably to see the LCNs anyway - not that there are many yet. Overall, a similar situation arises with bicycle networks, and here NCN, RCN and LCN tags seem to have been applied largely on whimsy. Canberra has (in my opinion) no NCNs, one or two RCNs, and lots of LCNs. But have a look at the rendering on www.opencyclemap.org It's a dog's breakfast. In fact, most of the LCNs on the north side of the lake are ways I've tagged as such. I haven't changed anyone's NCN or RCN tags. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:33 AM, John Henderson wrote: > A major advantage I see is little or no inconsistency in the way > different people tag routes. There will inevitably be disagreement > about the RWN/LWN decision point, but that's better than having > confusion about NWN/RWN as well. I can see that being a problem in Europe, but since Australia has no land borders, not a problem here. Consistency is a means to an end, not a goal in its own right. > In fact, a lot of those eyeing Aussie walking tracks online will be > European backpackers, and they'll surely expect to see what I'm proposing. Australia does not have any kind of international, national, or regional trail network as far as I know, so it's totally moot. It has individual long distance trails, but they don't form a network, as the distances are just too great. We have local networks (ie, trails that form a genuine network within a national park). > > Frankly, I see this as no problem at all. When I first visited the > site, It took be about two seconds flat to twig to that aspect. I think > it's fine like it is. You've got to zoom in considerably to see the > LCNs anyway - not that there are many yet. You mean LWNs? I found when I mapped the overland as RWN, I had to zoom in a long way to see it. Whereas it "should" show up at a national level - it's nationally significant. But I'm repeating myself. > > Overall, a similar situation arises with bicycle networks, and here NCN, > RCN and LCN tags seem to have been applied largely on whimsy. Canberra > has (in my opinion) no NCNs, one or two RCNs, and lots of LCNs. But > have a look at the rendering on www.opencyclemap.org It's a dog's > breakfast. > > In fact, most of the LCNs on the north side of the lake are ways I've > tagged as such. I haven't changed anyone's NCN or RCN tags. I wrote up proposed guidelines for LCN/RCN. My preferred scheme is that major trails more than 20km long or so, and all rail trails, are RCN, while LCN are basically local council routes. The ideal scheme is one where a map of a given area has a good balance. Look at melbourne: http://opencyclemap.org/?zoom=10&lat=-37.88113&lon=145.13056&layers=B000 Almost all of those RCNs are major named trails, like the Bay Trail, Lilydale-Warburton Rail Trail, Federation Trail, etc. Maybe there are too many shorter ones (ie, Rosstown Rail Trail), and some could be downgraded. Maybe non-urban rail trails should be upgraded to NCN, to make them stand out more. The point, again, is that we don't *have* a genuine network. We're fortunate in melbourne that at least the trails do form a network, but it's not managed at such. There are no route codes, no central authority,etc. So we in OSM have to come up with our own scheme that maps onto the British LCN/RCN/NCN scheme. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Australia does not have any kind of international, national, or > regional trail network as far as I know, so it's totally moot. Perhaps we can just agree that we differ? I support international uniformity in standards unless there's a very good reason to do otherwise. I suppose that's partly due to my spending the last 15 years of my working life as an analyst/programmer with the international search & rescue community. In so many ways (both critical and trivial), I've seen the positive benefits of falling into line, and the negative consequences of failing to do so. You're not going to convince me that Australia should go it's own way without mounting a stronger case. That's not to say that in general I won't follow the standards adopted within Australia. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:40 AM, John Henderson wrote: > Perhaps we can just agree that we differ? > I support international uniformity in standards unless there's a very > good reason to do otherwise. I suppose that's partly due to my spending > the last 15 years of my working life as an analyst/programmer with the > international search & rescue community. In so many ways (both critical > and trivial), I've seen the positive benefits of falling into line, and > the negative consequences of failing to do so. Ok, so give me some examples of what could happen if NWN in Australia doesn't mean the same as NWN in Germany or Sweden or Japan? Also, while I'm in favour of standards - is there even a standard here? Google "standard rwn nwn lwn iwn", and there is a single relevant hit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes Second paragraph: Is it worth adopting the same idea as for cycling, i.e. three levels of hierarchy - national, regional, and local. I don't see a standard here. It's *possible* there is a European standard. Even if that were the case, Australia is not in Europe, so the merits of following that standard are debatable, given our vastly different scale, geography, population etc. The only place I can even see a non-tautological definition for these networks is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route foot iwn International walking network: long distance paths used for walking routes that cross several countries, for example the Camino de Santiago foot nwn National walking network: long distance paths used for walking routes that cross countries foot rwn Regional walking network: used for walking routes that cross regions. In Belgium and the Netherlands this is used for the walking node networks foot lwn Local walking network: used for small local walking routes. Could be touristic loops or routes crossing a city Clearly this scheme was devised only with Europe in mind. A "long distance path" that "crosses a country" in Australia would be as long as an IWN in Europe. A regional trail in Australia would be as long as a NWN in Europe. And so forth. > You're not going to convince me that Australia should go it's own way > without mounting a stronger case. That's not to say that in general I > won't follow the standards adopted within Australia. http://osm.lonvia.de/world_hiking.html?zoom=7&lat=-35.53863&lon=145.79295&layers=FFBT It would be nice to see the Hume and Hovell Trail, and (when mapped) the Great Dividing Trail (Bendigo to Ballarat with offshoots), and perhaps others. You're effectively arguing that this map should never show those trails at this scale. Therefore, if Australians want to see maps like that at this scale, they're going to need an Australian-specific map that interprets NWN/RWN/LWN differently. How does this support interoperability? NWN (Switzerland): A trail of approximately 200-500km NWN (Australia): A trail of approximately 500-1km. ... Rather different things, imho. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > It would be nice to see the Hume and Hovell Trail, and (when mapped) > the Great Dividing Trail (Bendigo to Ballarat with offshoots), and > perhaps others. You're effectively arguing that this map should never > show those trails at this scale. Therefore, if Australians want to see > maps like that at this scale, they're going to need an > Australian-specific map that interprets NWN/RWN/LWN differently. How > does this support interoperability? If they're too stupid to zoom in to see those tracks, they shouldn't be walking them. Seriously. Or are you arguing something different? If you're arguing that each track should show in its entirety at some zoom level, and doesn't on my scheme, then that's important. But I checked the Hume and Hovell Walking Track for that aspect in the early days, and it does (Yass to Albury): http://osm.lonvia.de/world_hiking.html?zoom=9&lat=-35.51907&lon=148.13029 I do not wish to put my case again. If it made no impact the first time, it won't now. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:38 AM, John Henderson wrote: > If they're too stupid to zoom in to see those tracks, they shouldn't be > walking them. Seriously. > > Or are you arguing something different? If you're arguing that each track > should show in its entirety at some zoom level, and doesn't on my scheme, > then that's important. Have we reached the point where we start making inflammatory straw-man arguments rather than working together to reach a sensible conclusion? I hope not. I'll continue in good faith... Do you agree that a useful map is one that contains "enough" information but not "too much"? The Lonvia map, at the zoom level I pasted (ie, all of Victoria, and some of NSW and SA) would, under your scheme, show a grand total of exactly two trails. Any view of NT, SA, WA on Tasmania would show zero. QLD would show one. IMHO, this is too little. Of course you can zoom in and see a trail. But how do you know it's there? Maps serve a discovery function. Surely one of the main purposes of a map showing a hiking network is to let you easily all the available, significant trails in an area, and how they relate. Even on my large monitor, I can't even see all of Victoria at once on a scale that shows RWN trails. > I do not wish to put my case again. If it made no impact the first time, it > won't now. I don't want you to repeat yourself either. But perhaps you could address my two previous comments: 1) the RWN/NWN/etc scheme is not a "standard", it's a scheme used by Europeans to describe their hiking networks, do you agree? 2) what harm could result from Australia not following the "standard"? You've made reference to issues in search & rescue - can you be specific? Thanks, Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > 1) the RWN/NWN/etc scheme is not a "standard", it's a scheme used by > Europeans to describe their hiking networks, do you agree? That would/might make it a European standard, or convention. The question then is, do we want to adopt it here or not? If it makes sense to do so, then yes, if not, then no. > 2) what harm could result from Australia not following the "standard"? I would argue, from an insular point of view, as long as you do not call the .au standard the same name or use the same terms, none at all. The caveat because sooner or later someone will is sure to want to attempt international harmony and if we have used the same terminology for different things, they will curse us. The question should be, does the European convention make sense in the Australian context. If it sort of does then it would be sensible to use it rather than invent a new one. If it doesn't, go for it... and deal with the headache of sorting out the international compromises later. jim -- _ Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft 'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity.' - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Jim Croft wrote: > The question should be, does the European convention make sense in the > Australian context. If it sort of does then it would be sensible to > use it rather than invent a new one. If it doesn't, go for it... and > deal with the headache of sorting out the international compromises > later. Thank you Jim - eloquently put. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
Steve Bennett wrote: > Have we reached the point where we start making inflammatory straw-man > arguments rather than working together to reach a sensible conclusion? > I hope not. I'll continue in good faith... > > Do you agree that a useful map is one that contains "enough" > information but not "too much"? The Lonvia map, at the zoom level I > pasted (ie, all of Victoria, and some of NSW and SA) would, under your > scheme, show a grand total of exactly two trails. Any view of NT, SA, > WA on Tasmania would show zero. QLD would show one. IMHO, this is too > little. And I disagree. Having registered my disagreement, can we please leave it at that? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jim Croft wrote: > I would argue, from an insular point of view, as long as you do not > call the .au standard the same name or use the same terms, none at > all. And if you do? What if we tag our longest hiking trails "IWN", in complete defiance of the "standard"? What's the worst thing that could possibly happen? A thought experiment, if you will... >The caveat because sooner or later someone will is sure to want > to attempt international harmony and if we have used the same > terminology for different things, they will curse us. If we precisely define how we use the keys, and if it possible to readily distinguish our scheme from theirs (geographically, in this case), then I see no reason for cursing. In fact, if we use the four layers (IWN/NWN/RWN/LWN), then logically that gives us more flexibility for adapting to any later scheme, than if we only used two (RWN/LWN). > The question should be, does the European convention make sense in the > Australian context. If it sort of does then it would be sensible to > use it rather than invent a new one. If it doesn't, go for it... and > deal with the headache of sorting out the international compromises > later. The European scheme of four levels of hiking route, based on significance, is fine. It only breaks down if you insist that "significance" is defined by the level of boundaries being crossed. If you determine significance primarily by length, it works ok. If you determine significance with rules like "the three or four longest, most significant trails are IWN, then there can be a dozen or so NWN", then you might get a better result. Just as a cycleway in Germany doesn't allow pedestrians, but an Australian one does, it seems ok to me to have a German NWN cover a significant proportion of the country, but an Australian NWN be shorter. Anyway, my current position: show me a genuine international standard, and we should not abuse it. Or show me harm that could arise from not quite following the xWN convention. Failing these two things, we should do what is most pragmatic for our own needs. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, Jim Croft wrote: > The question should be, does the European convention make sense in the > Australian context. If it sort of does then it would be sensible to > use it rather than invent a new one. If it doesn't, go for it... and > deal with the headache of sorting out the international compromises > later. > so we should seriously consider using a different convention. what are the canadians doing? let's ask Sam Vekemans ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
