Are there any EV routes in Belgium that are not also LF or RV? Wouter
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 12:29 Matthieu Gaillet, <matth...@gaillet.be> 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 currently completely virtual (work in progress), > yet deleting in from our map would be totally irrelevant since this routes > are actually existing by the simple fact that thousands of users are using > it. > > Matthieu Gaillet > > On 13 Oct 2020, at 19:21, joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 to > see waymarked. If someone starts mapping virtual routes, they should > definitely be put in their own data model. > > Op di 13 okt. 2020 om 13:27 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <matth...@gaillet.be > >: > >> >> 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, Wouter Hamelinck <wouter.hameli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> 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 website of an authority, routes >> that are actively promoted, routes that were actively promoted for some >> event a few years ago and still can be found somewhere but are no longer >> maintained, routes where nobody really knows where they come from but they >> sound kind of official... >> It will get messy... >> >> Wouter >> >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, 09:51 Francois Gerin, <francois.ge...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +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 important, up to some "threshold". >>> "Think to the end users" is much less visible, but is visible anyway. >>> >>> I'm afraid that, being driven mostly by technical profiles/mappers, the >>> "Map what exists" rule seems to take the precedence because it is more >>> visible. >>> >>> According to me, "Think to the end users" should be the first rule, in >>> terms of priorities. >>> Followed by "Map what really exists", at the very same priority as "Use >>> your common sense" which is also very visible in the docs... >>> >>> => My 2 cents. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13/10/20 09:37, Matthieu Gaillet wrote: >>> >>> 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 "what should be mapped or not", I believe the >>> itineraries should appear in OSM only if their are proposed or designed by >>> an official operator, not mr nobody. That’s enough to keep quality, not >>> staying aside nice initiatives (even if virtual), and stay close to >>> exhaustive when it comes to official itineraries. >>> >>> After all, a route, sign posted or not, is in a sense always virtual. >>> >>> Matthieu >>> >>> On 13 Oct 2020, at 08:49, Tim Couwelier <tim.couwel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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 <s8e...@runbox.com>: >>> >>>> 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 already >>>> have 'virtual' hikes, where they only suggest which node numbers to >>>> combine. On the ground, nothing is marked. I don't think this should be in >>>> OSM. >>>> >>>> If I get this correctly, 'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR) are hikes made >>>> out of parts of existing GR trails? I wouldn't add that. The possibilities >>>> are just endless... >>>> >>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:57:59 +0000 (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be < >>>> talk-be@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> > 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 routes are not waymarked anymore. >>>> > Provincie Vlaams-Brabant enlarged the 'wandelnetwerk Getevallei', but >>>> the new nodes and routes are not waymarked anymore (too expensive). But >>>> there is a map, a website and an app. [1] >>>> > The municipality of Profondeville has the project '1000 bornes' (40 >>>> parcours pour vélos de route et VTT): only gps-tracks on route-you. [2] >>>> > More will probably follow (or perhaps already exist). >>>> > >>>> > So, what do we do? Or where do we draw the line? Because the line >>>> between what can be considered as official routes or not, could (in the >>>> future) become very thin. Or what do we do with the 'Randonnées en Boucle' >>>> (SGR)? What if Natuurpunt/Natagora starts with 'virtual' walking routes? >>>> > >>>> > What is your opinion? >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > >>>> > StijnRR >>>> > >>>> > P.S. The new map of 'wandelnetwerk De Merode' has OSM as background >>>> layer. Thanks to everyone who contributed. >>>> > >>>> > [1] >>>> https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/ >>>> > [2] https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Talk-be mailing list >>>> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-be mailing list >>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing >>> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > > > -- > Joost Schouppe > OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | > Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup > <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
