Concerning Relation: EV8 France 01b (16010984) | OpenStreetMap between Argelès and Le Boulou: For years, the cycleway north of the D618 highway was signposted as “temporary EV8” route while the final route further south was under planning and then construction. In summer 2023, the southern itinerary has been officially inaugurated as the final EV8 route. From my point of view, this means that Relation: EV8 France 01b (16010984) | OpenStreetMap should be integrated into Relation: EV8 France 01, Le Perthus - Argelès-sur-Mer (6621587) | OpenStreetMap and replace the temporary section.
2 Likes
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 would consider those statements:
Don’t map for the renderer (or other data consumers),
relations shouldn’t be too big
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.
- The stages can use ways directly or use existing relations, especially if two or more EV routes are using the same ways, like the transition part from France over Germany to Switzerland of EV5, EV6 and EV15.
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.
1 Like
Ground truth matters 
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.
1 Like
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.
I think that such routes should not be mapped or be deleted if mistakenly mapped (ones that exist solely in planning paperwork)
I have one worry: “Working Group” in OSM context typically means these: Working Groups - OpenStreetMap Foundation
Maybe a bit different name for threads would be better? [Mapping EuroVelo bicycle routes] not [EuroVelo&OSM Working Group] ?
1 Like
I’d vote for something shorter inside the brackets, not something longer
1 Like
Just [EuroVelo]? [EuroVelo bicycle routes]?
OSM and mapping part is implied on this forum.
[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)
3 Likes
Is done
1 Like
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?
1 Like
Hi, I have a question about proposed parts. In Spain we are dividing stages according to eurovelospain.com. each stage is contained in a relation. I’m working on the EV8 around Valencia. The thing here is that there are stages that have both developed and planned parts. What is the best way to map this?
- in the local telegram channel one opinion was to tag the whole stage with state=proposed although it might contain developed parts, just to be on the sure side.
- what i have done so far is to create a separate relation for each stage with all the undeveloped parts (eg. stage 23 and stage 23 under development) so it will be very easy to move ways to the other relation once they are developed
- delete undeveloped/in development parts although they were already mapped (with state=proposed). this has already been done in other parts on the EV8.
Regarding the name-tag: i feel stages should contain some differentiating in the name. right now many stages on the EV8 have no name-tag at all which makes handling and editing quite hard.
1 Like
2 is fine. But please don’t use the name tag for an editor-facing description. The name and ref tags are what will be used by routers and renderers to guide cyclists. They should be what is seen on the signs, and this will generally be the route number: in that case, the name should be blank rather than duplicating the ref.
If you need a name to make editing easier, use something like the description= tag, and file an issue with your favourite editor if it doesn’t show it in the contexts you need.
5 Likes