[talk-ch] Changes to HikingNetwork wiki page
enno.hermann at gmail.com
Wed Jul 14 10:04:21 CEST 2021
I also disagree with these wiki edits.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:51 AM Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dem Edit ist einige Diskussion vorausgegangen
> u.a. mit denjenigen, die die Wiki-Seite erstellt haben.
> Pls. don't do that because the way currently hiking routes are tagged is
Yes, there has been a lot of discussion and from this it should have been
clear that there is no unanimous support for the proposed changes and many
questions were left unanswered. What is it that is currently broken?
One argument was that in regions with few named guideposts, too many
relations would have to be created with the established guidelines. But now
a lot of base network hiking routes have been imported in Graubünden based
on these "new" guidelines with an extreme fragmentation of relations that
often consist only of a single way of a few hundred meters . How is that
an improvement? It's easy to create data this way when copying from the
cantonal GIS, but this is difficult to maintain through on-the-ground
surveys because of the lack of metadata.
It also shows a contradiction of the proposal: from= and to= tags were
proposed to identify the start and end point of a route, which I support.
But how would these be used in the case of the stub relations in Graubünden
? Should names be invented and how would these then be distinguished
from actual guidepost names? If the proposal was strictly followed, routes
would almost never start at a named guidepost because it is very common
that multiple routes start at a named guidepost and then split off shortly
after that at an unnamed one as we saw in Glarus . Something mentioned
again and again is that a way should not be in more than one base network
relation, so I ask once more, why is that a problem? Ways can be members of
many other relations anyway and if multiple routes follow that way it can
certainly be mapped like that.
As I said before, I'm not strictly against adapting the tagging guidelines
for regions in which the signposting is not yet done according to the
federal guidelines , e.g. Graubünden. But this must not involve
invalidating the current tagging for other regions where it works and is
widely applied already.
If some of you prefer to have a personal discussion on this topic, we can
arrange a time for that, although I'd prefer decisions to be made publicly
through the mailing list or wiki.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk-ch