There are 51 hiking routes in Iceland which are not signed on site (i’ve checked a few of them) and which obviously have been copied from a hiking guidebook (‘Rother Wanderführer Island’):
Another user reported this already nine years ago (see Unsigned Hiking Routes), but the routes are still in the database.
It is clear to me that these routes need to be deleted because they are not verifiable on site and are likely a copyright violation.
Should i delete the routes or does this has to be done by the Digital Working Group?
We have a few unsigned and undersigned routes in de OSM database in Nederland. Most of the time, the creator didn’t know about the “only signed routes” principle. Others think this principle is a hard rule, but it has exceptions.
Sometimes a deletion follows, sometimes the community thinks they deserve an exception. I think it’s important to reach a reasonable degree of consensus in the community, including the mappers who created and maintained the route relation.
Sure! We need to put each and every hiking route to an OSM-wide vote with at least 29,56% response. Preceded by an RFC of at least 5 weeks, that goes without saying. After that, the CABAL will decide.
Routes that are suitable for inclusion in OSM should usually match one or more of the following guidelines:
The route is signed or otherwise identifiable on the ground.
The route is established, documented and/or maintained by an organization that is well known or officially responsible for this function (e.g. mountaineering clubs, tourism boards, …).
The route itself is shared common knowledge among a significant number of people that are not all mutually connected. This usually means that it is easy to find different sources of information about it online or many people living in the area know about it. Examples for routes matching this criteria include the Haute Randonnée Pyrénéenne or the Greater Patagonia Trail, which are both unofficial and mostly unsigned, but are well known among long distance hikers.
Sounds to me like most should go, but maybe not all? It is not a hard rule that a route must be signed to be included.
You could try to reach out the local community, if they are fine with routes that cannot be learned from being there on site. One way perhaps, to post OSM notes on the trailheads e.g. You might reach the “local notes reading community”. No idea if that is the same as “the community” which was mentioned above.
The issue touches another thing: The routes were not learned by visiting the site, they were learned by reading a book. So they are quasi a supplement to the book. I do not think any community can decide on that issue. In the EU publishing these routes on OSM very likely a copyright violation. So they must not only be removed, they must be redacted. You should reach out the person that mapped these routes and ask if they have the right to publish them.
Rother Verlag routes are provided by the authors of the texts published by them. I understand them as personal guidance. If they (neither the publisher nor the guide) did not file a complaint for nine years, perhaps they are fine with them being on OSM. What if I published some routes? Of course, nobody would notice
I did retrieve all relation id’s of all 52 “Rother Wanderführer” routes and create a python script to use the OSM-API to retrieve the history for each relation and get the first version. Then get the date and the user for that first changeset.
I see all 52 routes are created by one user, one changeset per route. I did message that user pointing to this topic.
I’m the author of those 51 routes. I do have written permission from book publischer to put their routes on osm map.
For me OSM is main sourse to choose my hiking trips and I’m not totally agree with rule that only signed tracks can be on map.
This rule is justified in dence hiking areas as Alps, but there are so many butiful routes around the world wher never vill be any sign posts. Why we must hide those possibilities.
Maybe your frustation is justified in Iceland, but I can’t see what harm is caused with unsigned tracks generally.
you can add unsigned tracks, or paths, but these are not hiking routes in the OpenStreetMap sense if they are not recognizable on the ground, so you shouldn’t add route relations for these
OSM is not the place to store invisible routes; it is a database of visible objects. A marked route is visible, un unmarked route is not. There are other platforms, applications and apps which let you store and use any route; many of them use OSM as a background map layer.
The way that routes that “everyone knows” tend to be signed and documented varies hugely by country. Please don’t assume that what is the norm in your country is the norm elsewhere.
OSM’s “signposted routes only” is designed to stop people adding “my favourite route around X” to OSM (the sort of stuff that plagues the “social” sites and apps).
While there will be routes that obviously don’t belong in OSM, there will also be ones that do, because “everyone knows where they go”. Twenty years ago the “Coast to Coast” walk in England was like this - largely unsignposted but widely walked. Unofficial signposts then appeared, then some official ones, and now it has been adopted as an official National Trail.
The hiking routes from ‘Rother Wanderführer Island’ are suggestions from the author.
In some places where a route from the book is mapped, there are other signed hiking routes. This is the case, for example, at Skaftafellsjökull (see Waymarked Trails - Hiking). The routes S1–S6 were created by the Vatnajökull National Park and are signposted on site. The routes RW12–RW14 are from ‘Rother Wanderführer Island’ and are not signed.
In other places, such as Þingvellir (Waymarked Trails - Hiking), there are no signposted routes, only guideposts that point to points of interest. Everyone can create their own route.
I live in the Alps; I mention that, because the Alps were referred to above: In my local area it is just the same. We have a very dense network of ways signposted for walking, but very few hiking routes in the OSM sense.
In the past I deleted some relations that did not conform to what the documentation requires. Until finally I gave in and stopped interfering. These fantasy routes come up again and again. Perhaps it is just users of one or another app that want to see on the map, Yes! This path is great for walking. I do not know. But every other week one of them gets out of bed and becomes a contributor.
