[talk-ch] Changes to HikingNetwork wiki page

René Buffat buffat at gmail.com
Wed Jul 14 17:27:13 CEST 2021

I don't think that this region was mapped according to the recent changes
of the wiki. Or at least not consistent. E.g. see

I guess for the Door2Peak project there was pressure to map the area as
fast as possible without having too much thought on long-term

To be fair, this is also a herculean task for only a limited number of
- Until recently, there was no high quality imagery for this region
- And the region has a low population density, thus the chances of missing
or not accurate ways is quite high
- A lot of hiking routes are in forests, and a useful dtm hillshade will
only be available next year, so probably the quality of existing ways in
forests is not ideal
- It is a large region and there is quite a dense hiking network combined
with that nearly nothing was mapped previously

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 10:04, Enno Hermann <enno.hermann at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 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
>> broken.
> 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 [1]. 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
> [1]? 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 [2]. 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 [3], 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.
> [1] https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=17!46.8068!9.8499
> [2] https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=18!47.1253!9.0534
> [3]
> https://www.schweizer-wanderwege.ch/de/wanderwegmitarbeiter/handbuechermerkblaetter
> Best,
> Enno
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20210714/7143d8f3/attachment.htm>

More information about the talk-ch mailing list