'The future is virtual'. Yes and no.
Personally, when I go walking - I prefer to.. walk. Not keep an eye on my
phone for the route all the time.
I do love having them available virtually - the majority of my signposted
walks I've been able to find on RouteYou.
But when do I use the app?
1) When
Totally agree with that.
I also think that the future will be virtual, but don't think that it will
come from a website with a predefined network. I think that in the future
you will just insert some parameters (or the parameters have been deduced
from other routes that you liked) and a personal
If the virtual routes are available under a strict copyright, there's
nothing we can map. And if they are available under a free copyright, we
add very little value by adding them to OSM.
So I believe they don't belong in the main OSM db, but rather in a side
project (a project made for routes,
Hi,
That's also what I would expect: virtual is the future. Installing all those
signposts and keeping them in order takes a lot of time and money. If the
tourism agencies see that they can virtualize them away without losing
tourists, they will. We will indeed lose relevance if we don't go
Tendency in Toerisme Vlaanderen > ALL hiking nodes will go virtual within
10 years or so. (At least, that is their vision) So if you do not follow
this tendency, you make OSM irrelevant for routes. I'd make a thorough
choice in the official operators AND their choices. Eg. Natuurpunt DOES
stick to
Wether they are following another route is not relevant since it’s a separate
relation.
Matthieu Gaillet
> On 19 Oct 2020, at 14:33, Wouter Hamelinck wrote:
>
> Are there any EV routes in Belgium that are not also LF or RV?
>
> Wouter
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 12:29 Matthieu Gaillet,
Are there any EV routes in Belgium that are not also LF or RV?
Wouter
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 12:29 Matthieu Gaillet, wrote:
> Things are actually much less obvious and deserve a real second thought
> before taking position : it just came up to my mind that much of the
> Eurovelo network is still
Things are actually much less obvious and deserve a real second thought before
taking position : it just came up to my mind that much of the Eurovelo network
is still currently completely virtual (work in progress), yet deleting in from
our map would be totally irrelevant since this routes are
A few comments from our experience here in the south of the province of
Luxembourg.
Users jfonda, juminet, some others and myself have been very busy creating
relationships for the waymarked paths in different municipalities. The work
is not easy because there is always a lack of details to
I think we shouldn't actively map purely virtual routes. But there's a lot
of info that only lives on paper and still is relevant to OSM. So I find it
hard to give it a hard no. What is essential though, is that we don't make
a mess of the tagging. A route, right now, is something you can expect
That might be true but apply as well to signposted trails on the fled… I’m not
fully convinced.
But it is true that other websites or apps are specialised into publishing
“virtual" trails and that might be something pertaining to the OSM project.
Matthieu Gaillet
> On 13 Oct 2020, at 13:20,
Hi all,
I follow those who propose to limit ourselves for the mapping purposes to
what is waymarked on the ground.
Taking routes from other sources (be they official or not) makes everything
so fluid that we will end up with a huge mixed bag of gpx files that were
at some point in time on some
+1 for the "end user's perspective".
From my point of view, two key rules make the ground for OSM as pointed
out in several places of the documentation:
1. Think to end users
2. Map what really exists
"Map what really exists" is visible in many places in the docs, and this
is indeed
At first I was going to agree with Tim and s8evq but hey, the world is changing
and from an user perspective, having itineraries on the map is a plus, wether
they are signposted or not. I personally never follow sign posts, I just follow
‘a' route on my OSM-sourced GPS.
Regarding the question
I'm inclined to go by 'mapping verifiable ground truth'. Which means no -
don't add them unless signposted along the way.
Op di 13 okt. 2020 om 08:45 schreef s8evq :
> I do not think they should be in OSM, and I wouldn't mind deleting them. :)
>
> First of all, they are harder to keep up to date
I do not think they should be in OSM, and I wouldn't mind deleting them. :)
First of all, they are harder to keep up to date and verify.
Secondly, like you said, where do you draw the line. Who's routes do we add and
who's not?
For example, Natuurpunt and some of the local tourism offices
Hi,
There is a guideline or rule that only waymarked hiking/cycle/... routes should
be added to OSM. Not everyone agrees and there are some non-waymarked routes in
OSM because nobody, not even me, dares to remove them.
Anyway, that rule/guideline is getting in trouble because some official
17 matches
Mail list logo
