Re: [Talk-GB] Local walking routes
Thanks for your feedback, guys. On reflection, I now agree that route relations should generally be reserved for waymarked routes. I also agree with Richard F's comment that there is a need for a separate repository for sharing the sorts of unofficial routes I am talking about. Cheers David On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:44 +0100, "Richard Mann" wrote: > I think that walking routes are much more flexible than (say) cycling > routes, so there would be every prospect that umpteen different sets > of overlapping routes could be created by different people. So I'd > probably advise against putting them in the database unless they are > waymarked. > > Richard > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:23 AM, David Ellams > wrote: > > Where I live there is a Parish Paths Partnership (P3) Group, where > > volunteers work with the council on projects to maintain and improve access > > to public footpaths and brideways, e.g., waymarking, replacing stiles with > > gates, etc. They publish a number of suggested walks on their website (the > > walks for the most part just have descriptive titles such as "Circular walk > > - Pontesbury Hill and Polesgate Coppice"). With one exception, the routes > > themselves are not signed/marked (though they follow waymarked paths). I am > > thinking that, once I've got a bit more of the footpath network mapped, I > > might ask them whether they would like some maps of their routes for their > > web site, etc. (if I'm feeling really ambitious, I might one day even try to > > get them involved in the surveying/mapping - a footpath mapping party?). > > > > My question is whether I should record route relations for these (perhaps > > slightly unofficial) unsigned walks (ranging from 1.5 to about 5 miles). The > > Walking Routes page on the wiki suggests that "lwn" is to be used for signed > > routes. > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes > > > > This question seems equivalent, to an extent, to this question about the CTC > > National Byways Network: > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Kingdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F > > > > I realise there is nothing to stop me from adding these walking routes (as > > relations) to OSM, but I'd welcome feedback on whether folk think it is > > appropriate. Has anyone done anything like this elsewhere? I would not have > > to add them to OSM in order to produce some maps, so quite relaxed if there > > is a consensus that it is not appropriate. > > > > There is also a local Walking For Health group, with some involvement from > > the council, which publishes routes, but as far as I can see these are > > waymarked specifically, so I probably will consider creating route relations > > for those. Likewise, the P3 Group's one specifically waymarked (and named) > > route, I feel is a good candidate to record in OSM. So shout if you think > > I'm wrong on that one, too. > > > > Cheers > > > > David (davespod) > > ___ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Local walking routes
If I go into my local bookshop, I would probably find at least a dozen books of local walks, all different. They'll have given each walk a name, sometimes fancy, sometimes simple. OK so I live in a bit of a tourist hotspot, but I think it has to be something a bit more formal than just having a name. But I won't delete them if you want to put them in. Richard On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:44:45 +0100 > Richard Mann wrote: > > Hello Richard, > >> probably advise against putting them in the database unless they are >> waymarked. > > There are named routes that aren't waymarked. Near me, for example, > there's the Little Dart Ridge and Valley Walk. I'd be inclined to add > those to a relation, too. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > I'm surfing on a wave of nostalgia for an age yet to come > Nostalgia - The Buzzcocks > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Local walking routes
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:44:45 +0100 Richard Mann wrote: Hello Richard, > probably advise against putting them in the database unless they are > waymarked. There are named routes that aren't waymarked. Near me, for example, there's the Little Dart Ridge and Valley Walk. I'd be inclined to add those to a relation, too. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" I'm surfing on a wave of nostalgia for an age yet to come Nostalgia - The Buzzcocks ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Local walking routes
Hi As someone who does quite a bit of work on adding paths (including public rights of way) and walking routes to OSM my personal view would be to add relations only for routes which are either (a) waymarked as a route, and/or (b) carry a specific name e.g. "Little Sodding Millennium Walk". This is to avoid a proliferation of routes simply created locally - I create a good few each week! But it's a free country! Mike On 19:59, David Ellams wrote: Where I live there is a Parish Paths Partnership (P3) Group, where volunteers work with the council on projects to maintain and improve access to public footpaths and brideways, e.g., waymarking, replacing stiles with gates, etc. They publish a number of suggested walks on their website (the walks for the most part just have descriptive titles such as "Circular walk - Pontesbury Hill and Polesgate Coppice"). With one exception, the routes themselves are not signed/marked (though they follow waymarked paths). I am thinking that, once I've got a bit more of the footpath network mapped, I might ask them whether they would like some maps of their routes for their web site, etc. (if I'm feeling really ambitious, I might one day even try to get them involved in the surveying/mapping - a footpath mapping party?). My question is whether I should record route relations for these (perhaps slightly unofficial) unsigned walks (ranging from 1.5 to about 5 miles). The Walking Routes page on the wiki suggests that "lwn" is to be used for signed routes. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes This question seems equivalent, to an extent, to this question about the CTC National Byways Network: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Kingdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F I realise there is nothing to stop me from adding these walking routes (as relations) to OSM, but I'd welcome feedback on whether folk think it is appropriate. Has anyone done anything like this elsewhere? I would not have to add them to OSM in order to produce some maps, so quite relaxed if there is a consensus that it is not appropriate. There is also a local Walking For Health group, with some involvement from the council, which publishes routes, but as far as I can see these are waymarked specifically, so I probably will consider creating route relations for those. Likewise, the P3 Group's one specifically waymarked (and named) route, I feel is a good candidate to record in OSM. So shout if you think I'm wrong on that one, too. Cheers David (davespod) -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Local walking routes
David Ellams wrote: > With one exception, the routes themselves are not > signed/marked (though they follow waymarked paths). Don't tag them unless they're waymarked, _unless_ either they're proposed to be waymarked (in which case you could do so with a "state=proposed" tag on the relation), or there are such massive numbers of people trudging the route that you can ascertain it by watching them. Probably unlikely in Pontesbury. ;) If they are waymarked, there's no need to add the "network=lwn" tag unless there genuinely is a network. (To cite an example near you: the waymarked routes in and around Church Stretton could sensibly be given route relations, and because they're part of the town's Walkers Are Welcome network, I think a "network=lwn" tag would be justified.) One of the "it would be great if someone had the time to..." tasks is to make it easy for people to 'mash up' routes outside OSM like this. Theoretically you can already do it with OpenLayers, but the route breaks if any of the way ids change. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Local-walking-routes-tp5374782p5375972.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Local walking routes
I think that walking routes are much more flexible than (say) cycling routes, so there would be every prospect that umpteen different sets of overlapping routes could be created by different people. So I'd probably advise against putting them in the database unless they are waymarked. Richard On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:23 AM, David Ellams wrote: > Where I live there is a Parish Paths Partnership (P3) Group, where > volunteers work with the council on projects to maintain and improve access > to public footpaths and brideways, e.g., waymarking, replacing stiles with > gates, etc. They publish a number of suggested walks on their website (the > walks for the most part just have descriptive titles such as "Circular walk > - Pontesbury Hill and Polesgate Coppice"). With one exception, the routes > themselves are not signed/marked (though they follow waymarked paths). I am > thinking that, once I've got a bit more of the footpath network mapped, I > might ask them whether they would like some maps of their routes for their > web site, etc. (if I'm feeling really ambitious, I might one day even try to > get them involved in the surveying/mapping - a footpath mapping party?). > > My question is whether I should record route relations for these (perhaps > slightly unofficial) unsigned walks (ranging from 1.5 to about 5 miles). The > Walking Routes page on the wiki suggests that "lwn" is to be used for signed > routes. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes > > This question seems equivalent, to an extent, to this question about the CTC > National Byways Network: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Kingdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F > > I realise there is nothing to stop me from adding these walking routes (as > relations) to OSM, but I'd welcome feedback on whether folk think it is > appropriate. Has anyone done anything like this elsewhere? I would not have > to add them to OSM in order to produce some maps, so quite relaxed if there > is a consensus that it is not appropriate. > > There is also a local Walking For Health group, with some involvement from > the council, which publishes routes, but as far as I can see these are > waymarked specifically, so I probably will consider creating route relations > for those. Likewise, the P3 Group's one specifically waymarked (and named) > route, I feel is a good candidate to record in OSM. So shout if you think > I'm wrong on that one, too. > > Cheers > > David (davespod) > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Local walking routes
Where I live there is a Parish Paths Partnership (P3) Group, where volunteers work with the council on projects to maintain and improve access to public footpaths and brideways, e.g., waymarking, replacing stiles with gates, etc. They publish a number of suggested walks on their website (the walks for the most part just have descriptive titles such as "Circular walk - Pontesbury Hill and Polesgate Coppice"). With one exception, the routes themselves are not signed/marked (though they follow waymarked paths). I am thinking that, once I've got a bit more of the footpath network mapped, I might ask them whether they would like some maps of their routes for their web site, etc. (if I'm feeling really ambitious, I might one day even try to get them involved in the surveying/mapping - a footpath mapping party?). My question is whether I should record route relations for these (perhaps slightly unofficial) unsigned walks (ranging from 1.5 to about 5 miles). The Walking Routes page on the wiki suggests that "lwn" is to be used for signed routes. [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes This question seems equivalent, to an extent, to this question about the CTC National Byways Network: [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Ki ngdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F I realise there is nothing to stop me from adding these walking routes (as relations) to OSM, but I'd welcome feedback on whether folk think it is appropriate. Has anyone done anything like this elsewhere? I would not have to add them to OSM in order to produce some maps, so quite relaxed if there is a consensus that it is not appropriate. There is also a local Walking For Health group, with some involvement from the council, which publishes routes, but as far as I can see these are waymarked specifically, so I probably will consider creating route relations for those. Likewise, the P3 Group's one specifically waymarked (and named) route, I feel is a good candidate to record in OSM. So shout if you think I'm wrong on that one, too. Cheers David (davespod) References 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Kingdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
