[EuroVelo] Ongoing Knooppuntnet work

As announced in this thread, we’re creating sub-discussions to better focus on the main issues at hand, and avoid discussions to become too mixed up.

@StC started to add EuroVelo routes to the KPN monitor. This looks like a very promising way to identify inconsistencies and other issues, and to compare EuroVelo routes on OSM with their official tracks from www.EuroVelo.com (gathered from National EuroVelo Coordination Centres).

So I hope this thread can help to:

  • Render all European countries on KPN (or was this solved by the background choosing?)
  • Finish the work of dividing all EuroVelo routes on KPN monitor into daily sections and uploading the reference GPX (then it’s my job to solve the official GPX tracks issues together with our national partners)
  • Finding people to do from more countries to share this work with

Action points: Have all EuroVelo routes listed here with gpx references, or maybe per country like here, and act on the discrepancies.

The discussions on KPN were already well ongoing in the general thread, so I would suggest to continue here with anyone interested.


I would go for the first one, the complete EV routes as it easier to handle. I think that stages may be transnational sometimes, i.e. knooppuntnet, part Germany 3 (it’s the same part as knooppuntnet connection between Switzerland and France, a bit less than 1 km :slight_smile:

I have added a column to knooppuntnet at the wiki - a better column name would be very welcome.

That would be (in my opinion) a much better segmentation of the routes than current one. There would be new GPX tracks availaible I think, if I look in knooppuntnet at the segmentation of EV 4

If we reach a consensus we would update the wiki accordingly. Maybe adding a section in the wiki discussion page too.

How far do we want to go in this direction?

  • number stages from 1 to 125, instead of several times 1 to 25?
  • remove national relations, or at least get them out of the structure of the EV* super-relations?
  • harmonize our tagging practices in all concerned countries, so that any of us feels comfortable maintaining relations that span multiple countries?

For those who want to answer ‘yes’ to these questions, remains the question of how to organize work with national operators. What is the value of the tag operator on cross-border stages? who will supervise (or provide the reference data for) the maintenance of these stages?

In France, we have launched a collaborative effort and we are approximately halfway done on splitting the French parts of EV routes according to the EuroVelo stages. Hopefully it will take another week or less.

As for discrepancies, initial sampling shows that errors can be in the GPX file, in OSM, or sometimes in both. Local survey, or confirmation by EuroVelo NECCs or their own local relays may be required. In France, I hope that @Idrizza will be able to help.

1 Like

I didn’t express my opinion clear: I think that numbering of stages per country is better, but to have the whole EV route in the knooppuntnet table.

What about following scheme:

  • stages are relations, maybe even superrelations of existing relations
  • creating super routes of main alternative parts
  • the national relations is a superrelation of the stages
  • small transition “stages” or simply parts should be ignored for the national relations.

What do I mean with my third point?

Have a look at Relation: ‪EuroVelo 5 - Via Romea Francigena - part Germany 3‬ (‪9485492‬) | OpenStreetMap, the transition part of EV 5 between France and Switzerland as part Germany 3.
It’s a member of EV 15 as connection parts Switzerland and France, Relation: ‪EuroVelo 15 - Rhine Route - connection parts Switzerland and France‬ (‪10978514‬) | OpenStreetMap
EV 6 is using the same ways two times:
Relation: EV6 France Part 33
Relation: EuroVelo 6 - Atlantic-Black Sea - part Switzerland

This last relation includes between Schaffhausen and Öhningen another two small parts that are in Germany :slight_smile:

That’s what I mean with “no strict country borders” for the stages.
Other points:

If I look at the current gpx-parts of EV4 I see the need of creating segments at least of

  • EuroVelo 4 - Centraal-Europaroute - deel Nederland
  • EuroVelo 4 - Trasa střední Evropou - sekce Česká republika
  • EuroVelo 4 - Central Europe Route - part Poland

and a finer segmentation of most of the German parts, but I would consider combining sections in France too (if that’s possible), i.e

EV4 France, Saint-Hilaire-du-Harcouet - Mortain-Bocage (11 km) and EV4 France, Mortain-Bocage - Vire (43 km)

Both breaking up sections in smaller ones and combining small sections to greater ones have an impact on the numbering of the relations in that country. This is a good reason for only numbering the stages at national level.

BTW: thank you for your great work these last days.

Edit: added point of alternative superroutes

OK, but then I’m not sure if you propose the solution of EV6 (duplicating ways in national relations), the solution of EV15 (adding cross-border stages to the master relation), or the solution of EV5 (adding cross-border stages to one or the other country arbitrarily). I understand that it all falls under the umbrella of “no strict borders”, but the diversity of solutions might prove difficult to manage.

Actually, it probably depends on who decides what the numbering of stages is, and when. There probably is a conflict of authority looming somewhere, between ECF and its NECCs, and we need to make our mind who the real authority is as far as OSM is concerned. @Florange_Grimoire, what do you say?


Thanks for your work on this and detailed discussions.

I am still getting a bit confused with vocabulary on OSM, since it differs from the vocabulary I use in the EuroVelo world. What you call stages here is the daily sections?

I think that it would be good to harmonise those daily sections with the ones we have in the EuroVelo database. But in some countries they are still a work in progress on our end, so it’s not necessarily the best source. In general, the authority is the NECC, and we modify the EuroVelo DB based on what our NECCs decide. But in many countries, nothing specific has been officially decided (or we are not aware of it).

In general I think that the daily sections should be:

  • Not cross-border, that’s what we try to aim to because it helps data analysis and country-based statistics (though what we call “stages” are generally transnational because they have a touristic purpose)
  • Numbered by country - as pointed out, they are likely to change and then it’s easier to re-do the numbering for one country rather than the whole route
  • Harmonised with the EuroVelo DB in countries where there has already been some thought put into it: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, UK. If in some countries there is a conflict as to which division to follow, it would be interesting to look at it. In some cases I could also modify the structure of the EuroVelo DB to fit the OSM one, if it’s better.
1 Like