[EuroVelo] Conclusions - Action point "tagging and organising" EuroVelo routes

[Vinzenz_Mai]

This topic should serve as wiki to document the current conclusions of the first action point “Tagging topic” and this preface could be removed …

@Florange_Grimoire

• Tagging topic, including:

1. How to organise long routes? Also looking at this proposal from Najita
2. How to tag / whether to tag at all undeveloped EuroVelo routes (+ distinction between developed as a cycle route but not signed as EuroVelo, and not developed at all)
3. Clarifying forward/backward issues (mostly cycle routes, but also applies to some hiking routes)
   NB: On the EuroVelo website, I don’t have the possibility currently to upload different tracks for “forward” and “backward” itineraries, so there will always be differences between EuroVelo.com and OSM.

Action point: Reaching conclusions within the thread, updating the wiki page accordingly, and starting to make changes to OSM relations where needed.

How to organise EuroVelo routes

• we have an emergent consensus on having one sub-relation per daily section (see the EV17 example)

• we have another emergent consensus on having branches managed at the national level, and more generally national routes that rely on EuroVelo as a backbone, as independent relations using the same daily sections (

• as for the EuroVelo relations and their structure, a debate is ongoing between:

  • a “flattened” version currently exemplified by EV17 (no national relations in the structure, only the daily sections from EuroVelo and the parent relation).
  • a version with national segments in the relation hierarchy (children of the EV relations, parents of the daily sections)

Tagging

Tagging of the superrelation

Currently not even a conclusion and not complete (but I’m sure we will find a consensus):

ref=17 #as proposed by @Richard and supported by @Idrizza, currently used in icn_ref
name=Rhône Cycle Route
official_name:en=EuroVelo 17 - Rhone Cycle Route # if needed
cycle_network=EuroVelo
network=icn
label=EV17
type=superroute #or only route, discussion in a separate topic
route=bicycle

Tagging of the segments

Tagging of stages

• An emerging consensus on not numbering daily sections.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@Vinzenz_Mai

label=EV17

Rather than label, short_name tends to be more used for this sort of thing, see for example here.

[StC]

Great idea, this thread!

But we need to find the appropriate discipline to impose on ourselves so that comments to this page of “conclusions” do not distract debates from the threads where they reside.

Maybe just add pointers to the appropriate threads to indicate that there is a remaining itch and that it is scratched there?

Maybe also the title of this topic should be amended to reflect that it carries (current) conclusions?

[StC]

I have attempted to summarize current developments on numbering, on the flat structure (or not), on non-EuroVelo national branches. Ideally I would have added links to the topics where the consensus seems to be emerging or the debates art still ongoing.

Please do not provide arguments in this thread. If ever the status seems inadequately reported, fix it, report it here by with a reply, and provide your arguments in the appropriate threads.