My point on this topic is that it is difficult to talk about relation names without talking about their structure, and it is difficult to talk about relation structure without talking about roles. I don’t remember if was an EVs or an E, but last week we even encountered a route whose stage numbers were stored as role names
That is why I proposed EV17 as a first example, because I hope that it will raise the right questions and help us find out if there are things to clarify in your proposal.
Well, that is what examples are made for. If I give you the whole list of issues I have encountered with names as a contributor, a maintainer or trying to customize a rendering, most people will just look away from such a long list, and the rest will ask for examples. Let’s just see what issues come out of concrete examples shared by the whole group, and discuss them as a group.
That is what we are trying to do here: share questions so as to make more informed contributions to the proposal. Sorry if it feels like a step back to you, but it is a necessary step for the rest of us and it will definitely help build a consensus that may last long.
Yes, we definitely need a thread about how to proceed with discrepancies, which data is authoritative over which, etc. I have already suggested this to @Florange_Grimoire in the original discussion about the EuroVelo working group.
I think we should take our time to find the matching pattern for EV routes (and other routes). Analyzing the EV routes will help as showed by your examples.
I try to compile these issues with the wording of the proposal of Nadjita:
Every EV route should be a super-relation
can have separate main segments at each end (like the end of EV17 from Beaucaire to the Mediterranean coast)
can have separate main segments between two points (like the EV17 north and south of the Lac Leman). These can be multinational
Main segments should typically be super-relation
can have alternative segments (can be multinational)
can have connections between two separate main segments (can be multinational) or to another EV route
Some segments can maybe classified as excursions or an approach to the main route
Segments should (or could) have stages matching the stage parts of the official GPX tracks.
From my point of view the drafted proposal would cover these issues, if it’s possible to have two separate main segments.
Then there are the multinational branches. Would it be a problem, if some parts will be included two times in the EV super-relation, by the national super-relation and the super-relation of separate main segments? If it’s not, we could use this new structure.
I propose to use separate topics for every EV* route. There can be EV*-specific discussions, current problems that Knooppuntnet shows and solutions like your post here for EV8.
Maybe we can separate two things: topics for resolving issues on each EV, and threads for addressing “theoretical questions” using practical examples taken from possibly any EV.
Of course we can have a try.
I see two different approaches we can use.
Cut and combine the existing relations (of the lowest level) to match the stages of the GPX files.
Create new (duplicate) relations to match the stages without changing the existing ones
In either case the segments will be a new level of relations. We will see the impact when we include the segment relations to the EV17 super-relation.
We should document the tagging by creating the new wiki page of EV17, especially with the use of name and description.
That was my motivation to create separate topics for EV* routes.
If we try the new scheme for EV17, it would be a good idea to create such a topic for the EV17 issues.
[EuroVelo] I’d say. It’s also what others have suggested earlier. I would have loved to add the notion of working on hiking E-paths as well, but I’m fine with how we’re doing so far (working on EuroVelo but considering implications on other types of route networks)
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.)
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?