Another attempt at summarizing the current situation: How should we included the direction?
- Andy Townsend suggested "Explicit start and/or finish nodes?", but I'm afraid that's not enough to deduce the direction of complex hiking routes like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9535700 - Using the sorted order of the relation? A lot of criticism on this method. It's fragile and could easily break when newbies edit. On the other hand, it's the only solution we have. Sarah remarked: "An unsorted route is not wrong, it's only less precise. Maps can show it without issues including waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features." I guess the question is (as Peter Elderson also stated): would you rather have unsorted route relations and miss out on this additional information, or order the route relation and risk the danger they might get damaged later? On Fri, 3 May 2019 19:10:18 +0200, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you want a routing app to navigate you along an OSM route (using gpx as > intermediate), or a comparable dat use of OSM routes, the route must be > ordered correctly or it simply won't work. If 65% of the routes is ordered, > that means 35% is not and you can't rely on it for routing or profiling. I > would say you need at least 95% correct. > > Vr gr Peter Elderson > > > Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 18:39 schreef Sarah Hoffmann <lon...@denofr.de>: > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 01:24:49PM +0100, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > Seriously, hoever wrote that section of that wiki page > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation:route&action=history > > > must have done so out of their _desire_ that relations are kept ordered > > in > > > OSM, not out of any observation that they actually _are_ ordered. > > > > I haven't edited the wiki page but I'm likely responsible that it > > appeared because of this post: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lonvia/diary/42262 > > > > Please note the statistics at the end of the post. I actually > > did bother to observe the state of affairs and I found that a > > majority of routes in fact _are_ already sorted. The numbers > > are from before waymarkedtrails stopped sorting routes, i.e. > > they are not distored by the fact that people wanted to see > > a clean elevation profile on the site. > > > > > In OSM you need to deal with the data as it is, not as you'd like it to > > be - > > > the nature of the project, where anyone can contribute, and they may not > > be > > > even aware of concepts that you care deeply about makes it fundamentally > > the > > > worst place to be an architecture astronaut (as per > > https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/ > > > etc.). > > > > This judgement is a bit unfair unless you have actually tried to > > sort routes. It's easy for the 2/3 or so routes that are strictly > > linear. For everything else, it's hard. It's essentially an optimisation > > problem. And no matter what you do, part of your algorithm involves > > guessing what the mapper might have wanted. That is the point where > > I argue that the mapping is flawed and might miss some information > > that the mapper actual has at their disposal. > > > > Here is an example of a route that is really hard to sort > > automaticaly but is perfectly usable when used in the order it > > appears in the relation: > > https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=1115137 > > > > > That's not to say that we can't try and make contributions better, but > > the > > > way to do that is to modify the tools that people use to contribute to > > OSM > > > not to write wiki pages that no-one reads before they start editing. > > > > As everything in OSM, you don't need to read that wiki page and you > > have the freedom to sort your routes or not. If you don't want to > > bother, that's perfectly fine. An unsorted route is not wrong, it's > > only less precise. Maps can show it without issues including > > waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features. > > > > One more point: > > Most editors are quite good at keeping route order these days (iD has > > looong ago been fixed). But even when they get it wrong (mostly due to > > complicated way splits or reversals) having routes sorted actually > > means that the damage is less severe because when you stitch the > > remaining parts together, the result is still very usable. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Sarah > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
