Okay, this project is done. I have made the transclusion on the four pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot A minor issue is perhaps the layout of Tag:route=hiking and Tag:route=foot. Probably because of the transclusion, the table only start under the ValueDescription template. This results in quite some white space on the page. On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:18:29 +0200 (CEST), "s8evq" <s8...@runbox.com> wrote: > No further comments have been made to the current version > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations) > of the merged tagging schemes. If it's okay for everyone I would start > transcluding it on the four pages (Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and > Walking routes) > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:48:23 +0100, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 08:50, s8evq <s8...@runbox.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 14:34:20 +0100, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > A map with copyright permitting OSM to make use of its data. There > > > > > are > > > > several walks near me which appear on maps published by the county > > > council or tourist board. > > > > Copyright does not permit me to make use of those maps. > > > > > > If it's government maps with permission, you could argue the case. > > > > > > Nope. Not for these. Because the base map is explicitly copyright > > Ordnance Survey. The route > > marking isn't itself copyright OS (I don't think) but copyright the county > > council (not explicitly, > > but the UK is a signatory to the Berne Convention). But even with explicit > > permission from the > > council to use the route info on the map, I'd not use it because of the > > underlying OS map > > unless the OS also gave the OK. > > > > > > > But I'm especially afraid a lot of "not so official" routes would be > > > entered that way. I once found a kayak club had entered it's weekend trip > > > in OSM. > > > > > > > According to the wiki, local routes are permitted. All levels of walking > > route from trans-national > > to local. > > > > Another argument against mapping based on other maps with permission is > > > that it's a lot harder to verify. If we only map based on the presence of > > > physical markers on the ground, other mappers who pass by might be able to > > > spot mistakes or omission. On the other hand, when something is mapped > > > based of an online PDF, I'm afraid it will not get double checked so > > > quickly anymore. > > > > > > > The walks I mentioned use public footpaths, which are explicitly marked as > > such. Signs or > > waymarks where they connect to a highway, waymarks as necessary along the > > way. Other > > countries may do it differently, but here public footpaths are marked and > > even local walking > > clubs don't use routes which are not public footpaths unless the landowner > > has given > > explicit permission (in which case they will eventually become official > > public footpaths by > > dint of usage and marked as such). > > > > -- > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
