As discussed here this topic is dedicated to EV8 and its mapping in OSM.
What makes EV8 interesting is:
as raised here in an ever pleasant and constructive way, and discussed here, there is a significant discrepancy between the data propagated by local authorities to the route operator. It would be great to find a repeatable procedure for handling such cases, and testing it here. Unless of course someone feels better engaging in an edit war.
there is a branch that we can decide to manage as a subrelation of the parent route, or as a subrelation of the daily section Le Perthus - Argelès
And of course, given point 1, we should not just go and erase it based on the fact that this branch is not shown as EuroVelo 8 on the official websites. But in this type of cases, I wish to understand why this has been tagged as EV8, if it is a remnant form a previous routing that has changed, or if there is some discrepancy between the field and the websites, which should be addressed!
So, as an answer to point 1, could we imagine a procedure like this one:
For each EuroVelo route (maybe starting here with EV8), we list discrepancies (with the help of Knooppuntnet).
Where possible, for each discrepancy, we identify a local OSM contributor who mapped the route locally and has extra info such as pictures (in this case @rainerU).
The EuroVelo team (me) contacts the NECC (in this case @Idrizza), sends them the extra info if there is any, and asks them to double-check discrepancies, possibly with the regional authorities.
Depending on the conclusion, either the NECC modifies its tracks (meaning an update on the EuroVelo website too), or the track gets updated on OSM.
This is just a proposal stemming from this situation. Please improve it. And such a proposal would mean that each update will take some time, this will not happen in a day!
With my cycle.travel hat on, EV8 is one of the more problematic routes. Significant parts of the route through Spain are currently marked at eurovelo.com as “Route at the planning stage” or “Route under development”. On OSM, however, they have been included in the main EV8 relations with no indication that this is not a recognised route. The result is that people are being misled into riding along unsuitable roads. I’d like these sections either to be removed entirely from OSM, or moved into a state=proposed relation.
Once upon a time when I started mapping because my bike router was sending me off cliffs and was told to fix it here, I found EV8 was along the BI6. Then a comment came where I got that(?) After, reply was that’s wrong and before I knew the Wiki was changed and all me EV8 related route tags got reverted.
At any rate, few weeks ago came across this sign on the 400 meter long harbour cycle bridge
Substantially a lot of that BI6 is missing in OSM (many GPS tagged sign pics to support) although this sign says there’s 1370 km worth on the 6. Not here Relation: 140187 | OpenStreetMap.
If you know a skilled cycle route mapper, there’s work to do, a lot
End of threadjack.
Edit: Big sticker on track at top of bridge with slightly different distances.
Maybe this is an opportunity to open a new line of thought: how do we reach out to contributors who are actively contributing on EuroVelo routes or who could consider doing so?
As far as I know, this branch is for temporary use in case of high risk of wildfire, in which case the main branch is closed. There are signs along this branch with EV8 and Pirinexus logos but not at the junction with the main branch. I suppose that temporary signs are mounted there in case the main branch is closed for cyclists.
Thanks a lot for these explanations, it is much more clear. I am also noting down that we should find a way to consistently include such alternative branches on EuroVelo.com. For now, we don’t communicate clearly about them.
Would you by any chance have pictures of the signs along this branch?
I totally agree.
From OSM Spain in collaboration with EuroVelo Spain we are updating the routes. EV8 will have its turn. It has a multitude of errors and undeveloped sections. The agreement adopted is only to transfer fully developed routes to OSM. The rest must be eliminated.
