Hello!
I’d like to get back to this discussion referring to the comment of stevea on this thread. He explained the process they are following in the US to tag and work on the national cycle route network (which is a EuroVelo kind of network given the different states, lengths of the routes, etc.)
He shared the wiki page of the project:United States Bicycle Route System - OpenStreetMap Wiki
I think this globally aligns with what we already discussed. Maybe something interesting that we could align with is this:
Enter a proposed route into OSM only when you have solid knowledge that there is coordinated activity assembling this route (this is the ideal meaning of the “under development” category on EuroVelo.com)
and
Tag such proposed relations with state=proposed. Please add source=Where you learned the route members (here it could be “EuroVelo website” (but not necessarily super reliable, especially for countries without a NECC) or “meeting with NECC”)
So in practice, this would mean the following work:
- Adding missing EuroVelo routes under development (where they really are so) to OSM with this state=proposed tag
- Adding state=proposed tag to EuroVelo routes already mapped on OSM, which are under development
- Routes at the planning stage, where nothing is happening outside of paperworks and emails, are left out from OSM
- If OSM contributors find out that some routes marked “under developed” on EuroVelo.com are really at the planning stage, it should be reported back to the EuroVelo team to double-check with NECC if any, and update the website
- If routes at the planning stage have already been mapped on OSM, work on a case-by-case basis to avoid deleting useful work (for instance, in Belarus, it might be that routes are under development but we are not being kept informed because there is no NECC). So get in touch with the OSM contributor and ask where he has the info from?
Please let me know what you think of this. I don’t think we’ve gone deeper into this topic in another thread, have we?