On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 04:46:28PM +0200, inetis - Pierre-André Vullioud wrote:
Hi, Yes, it'll be great to have an "official" voice for OSM in Switzerland. We can use it to contact partners to include data in OSM.
Good news, the Via Francigena is completed for the Swiss part have a look at : http://hiking.lonvia.de/fr/relation/124582 more informations : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Via_Romea_Francigena GPX file from Lonvia : http://hiking.lonvia.de/fr/routebrowser/124582/gpx
Very nice, I used the relation a lot during the development of the hiking map... and I see that there is still a bug with superrelations in Montagny. I'll have a look at that later. ( http://hiking.lonvia.de/relation/371559?zoom=15&lat=46.79562&lon=6.6... )
I have a question. I checked the Swiss Via Francigena part with the relation analyzer: http://analyser.openstreetmap.fr/cgi-bin/index.py I had some errors on places and parking. To remove this error, I had to create a way through the place instead of adding the entire place. Exemple : Place de la navigation in Lausanne (I added the grey line)
Do you think it's the correct way to do that ?
As with everything in OSM, the answer is: there is not only one correct way.
There is the one fraction which says that you should not add ways where there are none in reality. Then there is the other fraction that insists that routing only works properly if there is such an invisible way.
In practise, routers should be fine if you add the complete place to a route as long as you make sure that the outgoing ways are connected to the outline of the place. It might route you along the boundaries of the place which is still fine. Putting the place in the relation is certainly no error.
On the other hand, adding this additional way will also not hurt. So, just leave it as is. It's fine, too.
Personally, I tend to put places entirely into the relation. In parking lots, I generally add the ways where the cars can drive as highway=service and use those for the hiking route.
Gruss
Sarah