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 <osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm> 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
