On 19/07/2018 12:21, Peter Elderson wrote:
All of those are survey goals.
A proposal like this comes along every few years & never really gets off
the ground. "Long hiking & cycling routes" by their nature of being long
are rarely traversed completely; people hop on-off of them in short
sections. So a "systematic survey" is highly unlikely.
Most of what's been listed here I would describe as every day mapping.
I'm unsure what benefit adding another tag, which will soon be
inaccurate, will bring.
There are a few validation tools to keep an eye on the integrity of
relations:
http://ra.osmsurround.org/
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/
http://overpass-turbo.eu/
Can anyone recommend some others?
Historic GPX traces remain relevant. Individually they are not that
accurate. Having a collection allows a mapper to iron out inaccuracies &
estimate a mean average route.
If you want to register a path being physically non navigable, an email
to the authority responsible produces better results than marking it in OSM.
Cheers
DaveF
The result of the survey may be that the route relation in OSM needs
to be adapted to reflect the situation in the field. That's what I
meant by maintenance of the route relation in OSM.
The goal of the idea is to tag the date of the last reality check. The
best thing I have now is the date of the last edit, which most of the
time results from e.g. a mapper's action (cut or remove) on a way
that's part of the route relation.
I want to ensure that the route in the field and the route relation
stay in sync, and when they don't (which is a 100% certainty) that you
can tell at what point in time it did match.
Information older than that date (e.g. gpx-tracks) can be discarded,
newer information can be entered, and edits after the survey date are
new info which should be kept.
2018-07-19 12:14 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com
<mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:
On 19/07/2018 07:50, Peter Elderson wrote:
I would like some thoughts on the idea of tagging route
maintenance. Long hiking & cycling routes need regular
maintenance. On the road, of course, which is not our problem,
but as a consequence they need re-surveying and adapting the
route relations to reality.
What do you mean by "maintenance" here? It could mean many things:
o Making sure that the route in OSM still matches the route on the
ground (diversions etc.).
o Making sure that the route on the ground is actually navigable
(e.g. a section of a walking route near me has suffered a landslip).
o Making sure that the route markers on the ground are mapped in
OSM (and updating OSM where they have disappeared)
o Making sure that the route is still contiguous in OSM (sometimes
if someone deletes and remaps an area they'll forget to readd a
way to the route)
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
--
Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
