I found the connection point near Filey of Cleveland Way and Yorkshire Wolds Way:
Beyond Stocking Dale you say goodbye to the Yorkshire Wolds and the landscapes of chalk country as you descend to Muston and onward to Filey. Relax at the sculpture carved with the National Trail acorn that marks the finish of the Yorkshire Wolds Way and also the Cleveland Way.
I think the whole thingâs a bit of a work in progress (hence this thread!). Currently E2 East and E2 West are both superroutes (obviously), but arenât yet part of a higher level one. The Middleton in Teesdale to Stranraer section is in both (see e.g. here).
I seem to remember that at some point last year everything was in one superroute. But in any case, Iâm not sure thereâs a consensus as to what the final relation structure should be.
The thing is, both the east and the west routes are equally important, you canât see one as main and one as variant. Both are called E2 but in fact they are two routes through England and Belgium, and Nederland has part of only the east route. In luxembourg they combine again.
To me it is justified to create two full superroutes E2 East and E2 West, sharing some parts, which are identical but are simply part of two supperroutes.
I thought regular route maintenance shouldnât be a problem, because that happens at the lower levels where the ways are, mappers donât even have to know it counts for the E2 superroutes as wel.
This could be handled differently, but then we would not be able to create one continuous single strand track, which I think is important for applications.
I may have jumped the gun here, I know. Long distance hierarchical route mapping has taken off since, and I have no problem with a different solution if that serves us better.
That is why I am pleased with this topic, and why I posted this.
What always bothers me is when I need to create information that does not exist on the ground (or here, in the operatorâs design) because of limits in our data model.
Hi Peter
In OSM we generally donât map walking routes that are not waymarked.
Firstly routes that appear only in books and online are ten a penny,
and there is not shortage of actual waymarked routes.
This seems like a large project, obviously with funding so why is it
not waymarked? In my experience local highway authorities are amenable
to waymarking provided you donât as them to pay for it, or do it.
I have just cleaned up what I could of E2 in France. Only remain a couple of discontinuities where available imaging is not helpful.
You may also have a problem on the French side of Lac Leman. As far as I know, there is a local disagreement on what the official route is. One French contributor has recent information on this that you may find useful.
Actually, Knooppuntnet crashes on these relations because of their size. Knooppuntnet now has some support for nested relations, even if not perfect.
As for references, using a snapshot of the OSM relation gives us continuity checks and monitoring of changes, which is already useful enough. And using a GPX file as a reference is not that useful for monitoring changes, actually; we found it is mainly useful when creating a route. Our workflow here it to switch from authoritative GPX to OSM reference once we have established conformance.
In France, E* routes are generally not waymarked because they are made of routes that are already waymarked in white/red and waymarking standards here do not encourage multiple marking.
Here a waymark is usually a small disc with the logo of the route. It is common to find several when on the same post where the path is shared by several routes.
I have discovered several routes by finding their waymarks along paths I am using.
They are generally attached to posts, stiles and gates along the route.
If waymarking is done right then it should be possible to follow the route using waymarks alone. Certainly we should be able to map them using waymarks alone.
Sure. Another workflow is to check routes using a tracker, then compare the track with OSM. I am also working with our national operator Wandelnet, to check their route maps against the waymarked routes and against the OSM route map, which requires yet another workflow. Knooppuntnet is useful there.
Too bad I canât get Wandelnet to use this tool themselves. Even at the national level, the operator doesnât really want to know the exact routes, routes are delegated to a path coördinator who has to handle everything with a team of unpaid field workers. These teams are still hung up on paper guides; digital is a far-from-my-bed show for most. A side dish best left to the nerds.
This also explains why E-routes are not waymarked as such and have gaps between separate waymarked hiking paths. No-one feels responsible. Formally they are; but in fact they just say âfeel free to walk our path; how you get there and what you do after, doesnât concern us.â
I had the idea of using small blue round stickers with the E-number on it, which can be added to the white-over-red and yellow-over-red stickers at strategic places. This would associate the E-route with the national route symbol, at ground level. That way, people will see what national route to follow for the E-route. We are talking say 200 small dot-stickers for a national path which serves as a section of an E-route. Cost: very low. Work: a minute per dot, done while doing the yearly maintenance checkup. Project time: should be finished in one year, so letâs take 2 years.
Same here in Nederland, but routes do cross, and partially overlap, and besides the nationa operator we have several others using similar, but different symbols (e.g. yellow-over-blue rectangles with different path names), and, letâs not forget, the Node Networks which now form one big aggregate covering the whole country, but with each province using its own styling. And cities tend to overrule the national and regional decisions with their own, e.g. several cities do not allow any stickers on posts and street furniture.
Probably adding the words âEuropean Long Distance Pathâ which then makes it searchable.
Waymarks are usually make out of metal or plastic and are attached using nails. Stickers require a smooth surface, which are few and far between in the countryside. My local RWN does also use stickers, but that works because it was rebranded a few years ago. They can be stuck over the old waymarks although the stickers do also appear on the backs of road signs.
I meant, small add-on stickers, to stick them on existing shields and stickers. No room for text, other then the E* number. Very effective in telling the hiker which local, regional or national symbols to follow until the next change. Itâs sort of the El Cheapo version of the German system of add-on shields attached to the hands of guideposts.
In general, as it is now, there are short gaps between sections. Often there is a bridge to cross, a ferry to take, a connecting road to the next named trail, where the E-people have thought: thatâs close enough, the hikers will find it.
Would it be acceptable to create a short link relation, used as a member in the superroute? There is a role for such links: role=connection. E.g. in the UK, it would solve the situation with the Humber bridge. And in France/Switzerland, the connection over the lake at Nyon.
Since a recent discussion about non-paths, a fairly consistent model has formed in my mind: paths and other highways are a particular case of a more general class of objects: routable objects. This class already includes some areas, and at some point weâll see other types of non-paths appear.
So why not make a list of routable objects we can use and extend it if necessary?
About the France-Switzerland connection, Iâm wondering about the relevance of the Nyon-Yvoire ferry connection. There are two competing starting points for GTA: Thonon and Saint-Gingolph. Both are fairly remote from YvoireâŠ
Maybe we could create a âfind some public transportâ relation by specifying two points, which would mean that it is up to the hiker to decide how s/he goes from A to B?
