> I'd define it slightly differently - its do we want *subjective* > routes in OSM? I don't think anyone is arguing that notable > *objective* routes, like the Pennine Way in the UK or the Appalachian > Way in the US can certainly be included as a route. >
Hi all, I'm going to be a bit provocative here, please bear with me.... 1) At what point does a route change from being 'subjective' to 'objective'? 2) 'Open Street Map is a map of everything'. 3) 'Your map, your way'. I understand the concern that we don't want the official map to be saturated with additional non-official (whatever that means) routes, however I don't think that it is a reason to prevent people/organisations adding there own relation/routes to the data base. At present the offical map does not render the relation/routes, when it does it can limit the ones it shows by using the operator and/or network tags. In the case of Bob Spirko, there is a huge resource of write-up and photos on his website. I believe that it is a benefit to add this information to the OSM database and (in my opinion) relation routes are the best way to do this. The first batch of trails are actually based around those published in a book, does this make them 'objective'? For OSM this get us additional ways on the ground, showing footpaths and tracks on the ground. The use of relations removes the surplus naming of ways (ie. a footpath would not have to be tagged 'Anderson Peak Trail' for example) and other marking of non-physical things. For Bob Spirko (or whomever) it gives the ability to render maps showing his routes (which can be done offline with osmarender or some other scheme) or to make GPS compilations for navigation. Just my thoughts. Cheers, Mungewell. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk