The Monitor function of knooppuntnet.nl has reached a new level of maturity that makes it a practical tool for monitoring the quality of very large routes, including European e-paths E1 to E12. See knooppuntnet, where most of them are already monitored (actually, all those that pass through France).
Currently, the most useful role of this Monitor function is to detect and manage discontinuities: missing members, ordering issues, etc. It makes it possible to engage in an improvement campaign, and we already have worked on it in France.
Anyone interested in doing the same in the other concerned European countries? If yes you can for instance:
go to the above page, find discontinuities, and address them
propose focused projects by replying to this message
ask here any questions about how current users of this function work with it
I went to the overview page but it is not immediately clear to me how to find the problems. I guess that is the “Deviations” column but for me that does not match with “missing members, ordering issues”, more that the route in OSM deviates from a reference and then I wonder what is the reference?
Based on the overview page the E5 has currently the most deviations: 230, 370 km so I had a look at that.
gpx corresponds to an arbitrary gpx file that a “monitor admin” has uploaded when creating the monitor. It helps when building a route in OSM, or when you want to maintain consistency between an outside reference and OSM.
osm corresponds to an OSM snapshot at a date that the admin choses when creating or updating the monitor. It helps to supervise the evolution of the route.
In my own perception, neither are very useful at this stage for the E* routes.
I do it through the number of segments displayed at the right of each line (the target to reach being ‘1’) and the vertical line at its right (the target being a continuous line with no red dot). Red dots at the middle of a segment indicate missing members or ordering issues in a relation, red dots between segments indicate issues when attempting to connect relations.
You will find a number of ‘false positives’, e.g. when a sub-relation is contravariant to the main relation. Issues have been filed for that on the knooppuntnet github.
About E5, as far as the French section is concerned, most of the discontinuities are related to issues with Knooppuntnet Monitor: alternative routes and routes that loop back onto themselves are frequent on the Brittany coast and they are not well handled yet. We might need to improve tagging conventions for these cases.
Following the link I gave in my first message, you can see them at E2 east and E2 west. See below for a sample picture, and look at the red dots. Mind, there can be some false positives as said earlier. But I saw at least one role in a relation that seems wrong.
My guesses might be being confused by relation order within parent relations (meh), or being confused by the alternatives here, but it would be useful for you to say what you think is actually wrong in this case.
Alternative routes are among the cases that confuse Knooppuntnet, we have a lot of those false positives in E5 and E9. When looking at a few examples of red dots on E2, I found some of those but I also found an ‘alternate’ role that seems wrong.
I also found ordering issues in superrelations that may need discussions. For instance in relation 1976184, Cleveland Way and Yorkshire Wolds Way should be contiguous I believe. But some issues may be related to the fact that official order for E2 (from ERA-FERP-EWV) is from North to South, that the main superrelation follows that order in OSM but apparently the UK part does not. I had to change the order of a couple of superrelations in France because of similar issues.
The “gap” between the Viking Way and the next link relation doesn’t seem to exist. I suspect that the tool is confused about the superroute having a way in it. I don’t think that there’s any E2 signage on the link relation and it doesn’t correspond to an “on the ground signed relation” so that bit I suspect is guesswork. Likewise this.
Yes, mixing ways and relations is a documented limitation of Knooppuntnet Monitor, an issue has been filed. Still, I believe I saw a discontinuity in the Yorkshire Wolds Way in JOSM. Did not investigate in JOSM, but the elevation profile of WMT seems to agree that something is amiss: Waymarked Trails - Hiking
In JOSM, the continuity line within a superroute indicates whether the relations connect to each other (if all the subrelations have been fully downloaded) AFAIK there is no way to order them geographically, except by hand. Superrelations containing variants and alternatives will always show gaps.
The continuity line in Knooppuntnet Monitor gives more information in one overview, including the hierarchy.
The link you gave links to Knooppuntnet Planner for hiking, that is a planner for Node Networks as found (only) in Belgium, Nederland, Duitsland, France and a small bicycle node network in Austria.
(Switzerland is in fact covered by a hiking node network, but they haven’t mapped it as such. The nodes and the routes are in OSM, so it would not be hard to turn it into an OSM Node Network; if that happens, the coverage of Knooppuntnet Planner can be easily extended for planning of hikes via the regular Swiss hiking network).
AFAIK, Knooppuntnet Monitor has no such limitation, and would also work in the US and Japan.
I think it’s not confused, it just has no way to display this collection relation as one continuous line. Then the supperrelation is not a single route, but a collection of routes, which are then displayed disjunct in the elevation profile.