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 route will be generated automatically. Hopefully based on OSM data. For me it is a lot more important to have the underlying path right, than to copy routes from all kinds of websites. Especially in forested regions, it is incredible how many paths are still missing. Or how many that don't exist have been mapped by armchair mappers. We should really focus on the basis in my opinion.
wouter On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:38 PM Sander Deryckere <sander...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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, prrhaps something umap like?). > > Op ma 19 okt. 2020 21:38 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be < > talk-be@openstreetmap.org>: > >> >> 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 along. >> By the way, if we stick to ground truth, we'll also have to remove most >> of the cycle highways because a lot of them haven't been waymarked yet and >> are still virtual. We just copied the information available on >> https://fietssnelwegen.be/ (and went even a lot further with those so >> called 'alternatives' which are still just somebody's fantasy in my >> opinion). So, in fact we already did decide that there is a place for >> virtual routes in OSM... >> But indeed: we will have to make a thorough choice in the official >> operators AND their choices. >> >> Some further comments on other reactions: >> >> No, it's not harder to keep the virtual routes up to date. It's even >> easier. You don't have to go out to check if there are still signposts or >> you don't have to buy a map or check if it's still for sale. If the route >> is available on the 'source-website', it exists, otherwise not. We only >> need to know which is the 'source-website', so we don't rely on a >> (outdated) copy. For routes like the Randonnées en Boucle which are only >> available in a book, it's as dubious as a map: is the book still in print >> or not? >> >> Adding virtual routes won't make it more 'messy' than it already is. Who >> checks regularly (every few years) whether the hiking/cycle/... routes in >> OSM haven't changed in the meantime or still exist? E.g. how long did it >> take before the outdated LF-routes got removed? >> >> To Pierre and company: adding waymarked routes to OSM by using only >> gpx-tracks (if that is what you're doing) is even worse than adding virtual >> routes, because you have no guarantee that those gpx-tracks correspond to >> the ground truth. I know from experience. Also maps which correspond to the >> ground truth are rare. (But go ahead, I don't mind what you're doing.) >> And indeed, we can't even keep up with the waymarked routes, but we could >> as well use that as an argument to give up mapping routes completely. >> >> "A route, right now, is something you can expect to see waymarked." I >> feel we'll have to let go of this. "If someone starts mapping virtual >> routes, they should definitely be put in their own data model." They're >> still local/regional/... hiking/cycle/... routes. Adding some tag like >> 'virtual=yes" on the route relations and nodes should suffice. (It will be >> a bit more complicated because a node can be both a virtual hiking node and >> a real cycle node.) >> >> Regards, >> >> StijnRR >> >> On Monday, October 19, 2020, 07:34:48 PM GMT+2, Steven Clays < >> steven.cl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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 signposting AFAIK. >> >> Op ma 19 okt. 2020 om 14:47 schreef Matthieu Gaillet <matth...@gaillet.be >> >: >> >> >> 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 <wouter.hameli...@gmail.com> >> 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, <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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > -- "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei." - Thor Heyerdahl
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
