Delete not marked walking routes?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Delete not marked walking routes?

Pee Wee

On Talk-BE this question was asked. Since this is a question that applies not only to  Belgium I thought it would be good to raise the question here. User Escada asked the same question on OSM help that there is not much response there.

Also on the Dutch forum this question was asked. Much to my surprise there seem to be quite a few that think it is OK to have these non way marked routes in OSM. Main argument is that there are also other non visible elements in OSM (such as administrative boundaries, bus routes etc.).

To keep discussion simple I suggest that we assume that the author of the booklet/website etc, in which a route is described allows us to enter this in OSM.  (no copyright issue)

What do you think?

Is is OK to have (walking) routes in OSM that have no visible marks on the ground and if so under what conditions?

Cheers
Peewee32



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Marc Gemis
Something that is perhaps not mentioned yet in the discussion:

What is the difference with a route in a book and one of a website, e.g. Strava, GPSies, wikiloc, etc. ? Isn't the only difference the way the route is published (print vs. digitial) ? And if you allow those (digital ones), every survey walk can be added as well.

regards 

m (aka Escada)

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Pee Wee <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Talk-BE this question was asked. Since this is a question that applies not only to  Belgium I thought it would be good to raise the question here. User Escada asked the same question on OSM help that there is not much response there.

Also on the Dutch forum this question was asked. Much to my surprise there seem to be quite a few that think it is OK to have these non way marked routes in OSM. Main argument is that there are also other non visible elements in OSM (such as administrative boundaries, bus routes etc.).

To keep discussion simple I suggest that we assume that the author of the booklet/website etc, in which a route is described allows us to enter this in OSM.  (no copyright issue)

What do you think?

Is is OK to have (walking) routes in OSM that have no visible marks on the ground and if so under what conditions?

Cheers
Peewee32



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Pee Wee
Hi,

On 09/20/2015 08:45 AM, Pee Wee wrote:
> Also on the Dutch forum
> <http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=32678>this question was
> asked. Much to my surprise there seem to be quite a few that think it is
> OK to have these non way marked routes in OSM. Main argument is that
> there are also other non visible elements in OSM (such as administrative
> boundaries, bus routes etc.).

It is a common problem for people to argue that since X is in OSM, Y can
automatically be in OSM too.

Our general rule is that things we map must be verifiable on the ground,
i.e. someone who goes there must be able to check that the feature does
indeed exist as described in OSM.

There are exceptions from that rule, but these exceptions do not
invalidate the rule. For example, we do map administrative boundaries
because they are very useful (not only for OSM users but also for
mappers). That doesn't mean we map every kind of invisible boundary.

We had a long-ish discussion about cycle routes in the US recently which
was about a similar issue; IIRC in that case the question was, can we
map "official" bike routes even if they are not, or perhaps not yet,
signposted on the ground, and many people said that since those were
indeed routes of some importance and had been designated (if not fully
signposted) by a national body, they were ok to have in OSM. They
wouldn't always be verifiable on the ground but it would be easy and
straightforward enough for anyone to verify them using existing material.

I think the argument about the routes you are talking about needs to be
conducted similarly. "There are other non-signposted things in OSM" is
not a valid reason; "these routes are important and widely accepted, and
everyone will know how to verify them" might be.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Warin
In reply to this post by Pee Wee
On 20/09/2015 4:45 PM, Pee Wee wrote:

On Talk-BE this question was asked. Since this is a question that applies not only to  Belgium I thought it would be good to raise the question here. User Escada asked the same question on OSM help that there is not much response there.

Also on the Dutch forum this question was asked. Much to my surprise there seem to be quite a few that think it is OK to have these non way marked routes in OSM. Main argument is that there are also other non visible elements in OSM (such as administrative boundaries, bus routes etc.).

To keep discussion simple I suggest that we assume that the author of the booklet/website etc, in which a route is described allows us to enter this in OSM.  (no copyright issue)

What do you think?

Is is OK to have (walking) routes in OSM that have no visible marks on the ground and if so under what conditions?



Yes, these are OK to have within OSM.

Case a) Verifiable by documentation. Published (medium does not matter). I'd think few would argue this case.

Case b) Frequent use and 'the best' route. This would be contentious. However,
  • the map user would benefit from the indication of 'the best' route.
  • for my cases there are no near by documented routes.

So as an aid to the map user .. would be of benefit. The verification comes from observance of the use of the route, that may take some time!
In highly developed and populated places this will seem wrong, in places with less people and/or infrastructure there may be few routes that meet the criteria set by those with the better infrastructure and more population. In some places an 'international route' may only be 50 km long .. in other places 2,000 km is not long enough to get to another country. So 'rules' should be 'guides' that take into account the wide variation around the globe.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Mateusz Konieczny-2
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:56:00 +1000
Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Case a) Verifiable by documentation. Published (medium does not
> matter). I'd think few would argue this case.

I am sure that not every single published route is worth mapping. Maybe
there are unique cases but certainly not all of them.

> Case b) Frequent use and 'the best' route. This would be contentious.

So every mapper may add his favourite route? What you propose as limit?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Warin
Please remember that the routes from books etc. are often loops, focussing on walking in one's spare time, not on moving from A to B

Warin61 wrote:
  • the map user would benefit from the indication of 'the best' route.
  • for my cases there are no near by documented routes.




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

moltonel 3x Combo
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-2


On 20 September 2015 11:54:00 GMT+01:00, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Case b) Frequent use and 'the best' route. This would be contentious.
>
>So every mapper may add his favourite route?

That bothers me as well. Even if we restricted ourselves to only published routes, we'd open ourselves to a stupidly large number of candidate routes ("publishing" today has a very very low barrier of entry). And relying on each contributor's subjective jugement to decide which routes are mapworthy doesn't sound like it can work.

I think that "the trail has to be physicaly waymarked, at least parts of it" is a good cutoff point for osm. It has a self-limiting quality and pushes the noteworthyness decision on to the local authorities.

Feel free to waymark your favorite trail to make it osm-worthy, and to put anything less tangible on your favorite trail-publishing platform instead.
--
Vincent Dp

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Dave F.
In reply to this post by Pee Wee
A route should be verifiable on the ground.

Verifiable via publication (paper, website etc) should not be used as a reason to add to OSM. Where would you stop? Would you, for instance, allow someone who writes an internet blog 'Where I walk my dog' & displays a GPX of the route? As Frederick has pointed out, there are exceptions but doesn't validate these routes inclusion.

Dave F. 

On 20/09/2015 07:45, Pee Wee wrote:

On Talk-BE this question was asked. Since this is a question that applies not only to  Belgium I thought it would be good to raise the question here. User Escada asked the same question on OSM help that there is not much response there.

Also on the Dutch forum this question was asked. Much to my surprise there seem to be quite a few that think it is OK to have these non way marked routes in OSM. Main argument is that there are also other non visible elements in OSM (such as administrative boundaries, bus routes etc.).

To keep discussion simple I suggest that we assume that the author of the booklet/website etc, in which a route is described allows us to enter this in OSM.  (no copyright issue)

What do you think?

Is is OK to have (walking) routes in OSM that have no visible marks on the ground and if so under what conditions?

Cheers
Peewee32




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Am 20.09.2015 um 15:07 schrieb Dave F. <[hidden email]>:
>
> A route should be verifiable on the ground.
>
> Verifiable via publication (paper, website etc) should not be used as a reason to add to OSM.


what about a map that shows the route and is placed on the ground, eg at the start of the route (let's say the map is in the public domain)?


Or signposted QR codes? This has recently become quite popular here, but without a smartphone (technical equipment) you can't verify the information.

cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

moltonel 3x Combo
On 20/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> what about a map that shows the route and is placed on the ground, eg at the
> start of the route (let's say the map is in the public domain)?

To me that's a (partially) waymarked trail and is absolutely fine.

> Or signposted QR codes? This has recently become quite popular here, but
> without a smartphone (technical equipment) you can't verify the information.

I'm assuming you're talking about a lone QRcode somewhere (at the
trailhead ?) and not a QRcode printed beside each waymarks or designed
to be itself a recognizable waymark (in which case the fact that there
is a QRcode is secondary).

Otherwise, it depends. Is it really a QRcode standing there without
human-readable (and osm-worthy) context ? What prompted you to scan
it, potentially following a malware link ? Does the QR encode a url or
an actual gpx/geojson/etc file ? IMHO a standalone QRcode pointing to
a url is not mapworthy. Especially in today's world where it is so
easy to print one and stick it somewhere, it has no more authority
than a spray-painted graffiti.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Lauri Kytömaa-2
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Our general rule is that things we map must be verifiable on the ground,
> i.e. someone who goes there must be able to check that the feature does
> indeed exist as described in OSM.

This message isn't really contradicting what you wrote later in the
message, but I have to remind others that verifiability doesn't need
to be easy, or it might not even be possible without expert knowledge,
equipment or reference to "other" material not directly present in the
location being mapped.

As a counterexample, let's consider an underground water or heat
pipeline in the city; these are constantly being repaired, improved
or preemptively replaced. A mapper sees the open repair pit on a road,
interpolates the pipeline's location and turns with other known features
and imagery getting the accuracy down to, say, 50 cm. A month later,
the next mapper would only see the patched pavement, and possibly
some manhole covers far or very far apart; only the general alignment
can be inferred. Then, a year later the whole street is repaved, and
only the manhole covers remain, but one couldn't know (for some level
of certainly) whether they belong to pipelines crossing the street, or
whether one pipeline runs along the street, unless one surveys the
whole neighbourhood. Nobody is however suggesting the pipeline
should be removed, or turned into a straight line just because every
casual mapper can't verify the form and attributes on site.

In fact, even administrative boundaries can be verified "in place",
in theory, but it would normally take a whole lot of time and incur
expenses: build an illegal shack anywhere near the border, and wait
for the officials to react, and read the papers you get to see which
area you were in. And that could be costly. Likewise, national borders
can be verified by doing something that attracts the interest of the
enforcement authorities (police, border guard, military); when you see
which country they serve, you know which country you were in. That's
hardly "not present" on the ground.

> "official" bike routes
>...
> (if not fully
> signposted) by a national body, they were ok to have in OSM. They
> wouldn't always be verifiable on the ground but it would be easy and
> straightforward enough for anyone to verify them using existing material.

Back on the topic of this thread, the unmarked but published routes,
I would be on the inclusive side, (roughly drafting) "as long as the exact
route is or has been used for the same purpose by several parties (n>>2)
on different dates, and is not the only connection between two destinations"
or something like that. This would rule out the personal dog walking routes,
single mapping walks and other personal notes of the type "I was there",
but would "allow" the routes of e.g. marathon competitions, long distance
cycling races and routes of motorcar races on the public road network, when
the event is not a one-off. The routes are very visible for some time each time
the event is held; either a line on the ground, fences or other barriers, or
just signposts that get removed later. If we record the data, it _could_ be
reconstructed in the future even if the relation is later destroyed and
eventually deleted, if we don't, it's soon gone forever. The last part
of the draft
sentence above is to say that when a single forest trail connects two villages,
it's probably not a route in the sense of this discussion, but when two or
more trails connectthe same villages but the overwhelming majority of
pedestrians going from A to B use only one of those trails (for whatever
reason), it 'could' be something in the DB; not part of a walking route
network or anything, but not something that should be deleted straight away,
either. If there's a signpost for it at the ends of the route, that's
even better.

--
alv

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

voschix
I would strongly suggest to stick to an approach for hiking routes that is similar to the one commonly applied to cycle routes:
"Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed routes." ("cycle routes" wiki page)
In addition a cycle route that has been proposed and is likely to be implemented within he next few years can be inserted in OSM as a cycle route relation with the additional tag state=proposed.
Routes that are not trail-blazed in some way and are not proposed by some kind of official body should not be mapped as cycle route relations.

Volker
Italy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Mateusz Konieczny-2
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:59:24 +0200
Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In addition a cycle route that has been proposed and is likely to be
> implemented within he next few years can be inserted in OSM as a cycle
> route relation with the additional tag state=proposed.

I would strongly oppose adding merely proposed routes, especially in
way that would be likely to be interpreted as a real route by data
consumers (it would cause problems described in
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35702 )

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Friedrich Volkmann
In reply to this post by Pee Wee
On 20.09.2015 08:45, Pee Wee wrote:
> What do you think?
>
> Is is OK to have (walking) routes in OSM that have no visible marks on the
> ground and if so under what conditions?

First of all, we need to distinguish ways and relations. A path may be
visible or invisible, and a route may be actually marked/signposted or not.
So there are 4 possible combinations. You certainly mean relations for
unmarked routes consisting of visible paths, but let's have a look at the
opposite combination first: A relation for a marked trail with some section
where no path is visible (e.g. crossing a meadow). If we map only what is
"verifyable on the ground", as was suggested in some answers, we must not
map invisible paths. So we'd end up with incomplete relations that are hardy
routable, and whose statistics (length, heigth profile, % paved, etc.) are
incorrect. That's why most mappers do map those route segments even though
they are not verifyable on the ground. But hang on - are they really not
verifyable? There's a marked trail going off one end of the meadow, and a
marked trail going off the other side of the meadow. So we do see that the
route crosses the meadow. We do not see the invisible path, but we see that
there *is* an invisible path. It is verifyable or not, depending on how we
think about it.

I recently mapped a climbing route that is invisible from start to end. But
is has been documented in climbing guides for decades. I was able to
identify the rocks, ravines etc. described in the books. So the route is
verifyable on the ground - but only in conjunction with the climbing guides.
If all of these get lost in a fire, the verifyability will also be gone. But
hey, that's the same for the names of peaks, ridges, valleys etc. There's no
sign "Mount Everest" on the peak of the Mount Everest. The peak is
verifyable on the ground, its name is not. We map the names because they are
common knowledge. The climbing route I mapped has been common knowledge as well.

A hiking route suggested in one single book by one single author can hardly
be considered common knowledge, especially if the the route is just a
combination of paths that were already known before. That kind of routes do
not belong in OSM.

I should also mention that I did not create a relation for the climbing
route mentioned above. I just mapped the highway=path. Why would we need a
relation if the route is not marked, and all the other tags can be set on
the ways directly? Looking at the relations I found via your first link
(rel-id 2099391, 4108560), I wonder what tags are supposed to justify a
relation. What do ref=*, name=*, colour=* etc. mean when the route is
neither marked nor signposted in situ? Is ref=4b the page number in the
book? Is name=PP_5 the chapter in the book? Is colour=aqua the colour in the
book? What about isbn=978-2-930488-18-9? A route cannot have an ISBN. So
that's obviously the ISBN of the book. This is cleary a misuse of OSM. OSM
is a database for geographic data, not a book index. These relations need to
be removed, there's nothing to discuss about that.

--
Friedrich K. Volkmann       http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Warin
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-2
On 23/09/2015 4:15 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:59:24 +0200
> Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> In addition a cycle route that has been proposed and is likely to be
>> implemented within he next few years can be inserted in OSM as a cycle
>> route relation with the additional tag state=proposed.
> I would strongly oppose adding merely proposed routes, especially in
> way that would be likely to be interpreted as a real route by data
> consumers

+1

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Delete not marked walking routes?

Mateusz Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by Friedrich Volkmann
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:43:41 +0200
Friedrich Volkmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I should also mention that I did not create a relation for the
> climbing route mentioned above. I just mapped the highway=path

Is it really fitting "A generic multi-use path open to non-motorized
vehicles." definition?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging