[talk-ch] Changes to HikingNetwork wiki page

Yves ycai at mailbox.org
Fri Sep 3 23:12:14 CEST 2021

Why not just osmc:symbols=yellow_diamond on the ways?
*=designated would be more for acces rights.

Le 3 septembre 2021 21:09:24 GMT+02:00, Raphael <dafadllyn at gmail.com> a écrit :
>Hi Matthijs, hi everyone
>It seems that a consensus hasn't been reached yet - at least not on this list.
>The Swiss hiking network is a bit peculiar. It's not a typical node
>network as the intersections (or nodes) aren't numbered and very often
>are unnamed. On the other hand the hiking trails (not including the
>routes from SchweizMobil) aren't typical routes as they are unnamed,
>unnumbered, have countless possible starts and ends and often have
>multiple variants from one named place to the next.
>In my opinion, the simplest way to map the Swiss hiking trails is by
>adding a tag to the corresponding paths (maybe trail=hiking or
>hiking=designated) and using route=hiking routes only for the "real"
>SchweizMobil routes.
>Best regards
>Raphael (dafadllyn)
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 20:21, Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs at stdin.nl> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm new to this list, so let me start with a small introduction: I'm a Dutch
>> mapper, but I visit Switzerland every now and then (my brother lives in Rieden
>> SG) and I like to do some hiking and mapping here. In the Netherlands, I've
>> done some mapping on the cycle node networks, and in Switzerland I like to work
>> on the wanderwegen network (though I have not mapped much, so treat my input
>> accordingly).
>> I've been involved on the wiki page discussion section before, and from
>> the wiki page history found a link to this thread, which I have read
>> with much interest. Hopefully I can add something to the discussion in
>> this thread.
>> From reading this discussion, it seems that there are still some matters
>> where no consensus has been reached (in particular the matter of
>> overlapping or non-overlapping routes). But it also seems that there has
>> been some discussion about this off-list. Maybe some consensus has been
>> reached elsewhere?
>> In case you have not seen it yet: there has been some effort (initiated by
>> Peter Elderson AFAIU) to document current practices and rationale about node
>> networks. This is mostly based on the numbered cycle/walking networks in NL/BE,
>> but explicit effort has been made to also include named networks like Germany
>> and Switzerland uses. AFAIU there has already been some experiments involving
>> parts of the german network.
>> The current state of this documentation can be found here:
>>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node_Networks
>> If this has not been done already, I would suggest considering to make the
>> Swiss tagging scheme either conform to that page, or modify/generalize that
>> page to also apply to the Swiss tagging.
>> I just read through the page, and here's some notable observations from the
>> current Swiss practice:
>>  - The primary goal of the model specified is to facilitate routing and
>>    rendering of node networks. For example, the knooppuntnet.nl website allows
>>    entering a starting and ending node, and calculates a route between them
>>    using only routes part of the network, and produces a list of node numbers
>>    to follow (support for names instead of numbers is nearly complete, I
>>    believe). For the Swiss case, this could work the same, but produce a list
>>    of named nodes/guideposts the route passes (so you could walk the route
>>    without bringing an actual map, just follow signs to each of the names in
>>    turn).
>>  - That page specifies to tag the actual junctions (as part of the ways they
>>    connect), instead of (or in addition to) the physical guideposts (besides
>>    the way they connect), which is a significant difference from the current
>>    Swiss practice. I believe the goal is to simplify routing, since you can
>>    then know which named junctions you pass exactly, without needing to find
>>    guideposts based on nearness. It can also help with network consistency
>>    checks (especially when combined with the expected_STn_route_relations
>>    attribute).
>>  - That page also talks about junctions without a number or name, and specifies
>>    to create multiple partially overlapping routes in that case (and tagging
>>    the unnamed nodes with `xxn_ref=*`).
>>    Note that for the Dutch case, unnumbered junctions are very rare and almost
>>    always in the near vicinity of a numbered node, so in the Swiss case in
>>    regions that have more unnamed junctions, overlapping routes might have
>>    additional downsides (such as a potential explosion of possible routes when
>>    multiple unnamed guideposts exist between named routes, and the extra
>>    difficulty mapping partial routes).
>>  - That page specifies to use `name=from-to` for named node networks (numbered
>>    networks use `ref=from-to`), while discussion on this list was moving
>>    towards not using the name anymore.  However, it might be that that page
>>    specifies this to match current practice and could be changed without
>>    problems.
>>  - That page specifies a "network" relation (not strictly required, though),
>>    that collects all the routes and nodes belonging to a specific node network,
>>    to allow semantically grouping routes and specifying e.g. the operator once
>>    for the entire network. In the Swiss case, I think this could amount to one
>>    network relation for each Canton.
>>  - That page specifies a `network:type=node_network` attribute for nodes,
>>    routes and networks, to help distinguish them from regular routes.
>> Some earlier discussion about supporting named node networks has been done here:
>>         https://github.com/vmarc/knooppuntnet/issues/102
>>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Named_nodes_in_node_networks
>> Then, reading the wiki page in its current state, it seems to better reflect
>> current and intended practice, which is good. However, I think there are still
>> some things that could be clarified. In particular:
>>  - How to tag unnamed guideposts? Common practice seems to be to just omit
>>    name, maybe that should be explicit on the wiki?
>>  - How to handle numbered guideposts? For example in Graubünden (I walked in
>>    the area around Trin), I've seen guideposts (named and unnamed) that have a
>>    three-digit number that were already mapped with the number in the `ref`
>>    attribute, maybe that would be good to add to the wiki?  For an example
>>    (with photo) see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6100531211 Similarly, I
>>    understand that newer guideposts have a 6-digit unique number.
>>  - Would it make sense to put these guideposts numbers in the relations?
>>    Especially when using the "non-overlapping routes between junctions"
>>    approach, putting these numbers in the from and to attributes could help
>>    diagnose issues. OTOH, they are mostly meaningless to users, in the sense
>>    that the signing does not point *to* these numbers, you can only see them
>>    when you are at a particular guidepost.
>>  - How to tag from/to with unnamed guideposts? Should we invent names?
>>    Just omit the tag? I think no full consensus might have been reached
>>    here?
>>  - Maybe make explicit that name= was used with from-to before, since a
>>    lot of existing routes still have that. If it is explicit that this is no
>>    longer recommended, that will be less confusing for new mappers.
>>  - Is it ok to copy routes from the cantonal GIS systems? If not, or
>>    only from some, maybe make this explicit?
>> Gr.
>> Matthijs
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ch mailing list
>> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>talk-ch mailing list
>talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20210903/e3802985/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the talk-ch mailing list