This would require doubling existing relationships with developing parties “state=proposed”. To make this clearer, we could re-use this wiki page to include the creation of these “state=proposed” relationships to the big one, like the EV5. (and I realize that it does not include France 1 planned 
).
Few reactions to this message, even though it was originally the main topic raised by the original poster. I take it as the sign of a limited interest for diversifying the media used by the working group.
Still, I fear that using a single Discourse thread is very fragile; I am even surprised that we have managed to stay reasonably focused so far. In the future, there are very diverse questions that we’ll want to discuss, which will make the thread difficult to follow, and which will each bring its own risk of drifting off topic.
Maybe an option would be to fork this thread, and/or create a new topic, for every new subject related to EV or E-path management. And, to keep track of these new topics, we could decide to prefix their titles with something like [EuroRoutes].
I believe that only users above a certain trust level can fork threads. But maybe we can do without forking, just by creating new threads?
1 Like
Just use something like “eurovelo” as a tag - that will allow posts to appear together.
4 Likes
There are two points in your reply:
-
do posts with the same tags appear together? It looks to me like the answer is no, at least on the main UI of the Discourse app. Did I miss something?
-
eurovelo vs euroroutes. This depends on the scope we want to give to the group; my earlier point was that most tagging / modeling issues are common to at least hiking routes and bicycle routes, and that it would be beneficial to join forces. Of course, the name “euroroute” is just a placeholder and we would have to find something better.
You can create a URL that makes them appear together, for example https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/route is all posts tagged with “route” (for many different sorts of routes, in many different categories).
I only suggested “eurovelo” because the was what was in the thread title. It’d be perfectly possible to use both. Currently this thread has tags “tagging”, “cycle-route”, “group” and “network”, and will turn up in searches for any of those.
Have a look at Long distance hiking trails project - #78 by Vinzenz_Mai
I think that’s very convenient.
I would favour “eurovelo” as tag
1 Like
KPN dont render only few countries.
One could:
- ask Marc to render all European countires
- use OSM bitmap background
- ask Marc to display other bitmap backgrounds (Topo from trace stack, OpenTopoMap…)
- ask Marc to use other vector styles
Using OSM bitmap background is already possible today. Use the layers button in the top right to switch to OpenStreetMap background. When changing pages, knooppuntnet will intentionally always switch back to using its own background tiles. This behaviour may have to be changed.
2 Likes
It work well if:
- you select only the ways/part that should be reordered
- split correctly roundabouts…
Hi everyone! And thanks Stéphane for re-centering the discussion on how to go forward and make sure discussions continue in a sustainable way 
I would favor the idea of creating other, linked threads to continue discussing the main issues that have come up in the discussion so far. I would also be in favor of using a “EuroVelo” tag to group related topics, together with other tags commonly used in hiking routes threads such as “route” and “relation”. We can of course keep this thread for general, steering messages, and for new ideas.
From re-reading this thread, I see 3 main directions:
- Tagging topic, including:
- How to organise long routes? Also looking at this proposal from Najita
- How to tag / whether to tag at all undeveloped EuroVelo routes (+ distinction between developed as a cycle route but not signed as EuroVelo, and not developed at all)
- Clarifying forward/backward issues (mostly cycle routes, but also applies to some hiking routes)
NB: On the EuroVelo website, I don’t have the possibility currently to upload different tracks for “forward” and “backward” itineraries, so there will always be differences between EuroVelo.com and OSM.
Action point: Reaching conclusions within the thread, updating the wiki page accordingly, and starting to make changes to OSM relations where needed.
- Ongoing Knooppuntnet work, including:
- Rendering all European countries on KPN (or was this solved by the background choosing?)
- Finishing the work of dividing all EuroVelo routes on KPN monitor into daily sections and uploading the reference GPX - allowing to clearly see inconsistencies and discrepancies between official GPX tracks and OSM (then it’s my job to solve the official GPX tracks issues together with our national partners)
- Sharing the work and finding people to do this work in more countries
Action points: Have all EuroVelo routes listed here with gpx references, or maybe per country like here, and act on the discrepancies.
- Common license for EuroVelo routes, facilitating the use of official GPX tracks on OSM: this is on hold now, until an agreement is found between ECF and national coordinators. I’ll get back to the community when I have news.
So I’ll go ahead and create forking threads.Please let me know if you think I am missing something important!
Yes, I believe that we need a thread to clarify maintenance processes and reference data management: who updates what based on what information?
From what I understand, in France the local authorities send updates to the French NECC who sends them to EuroVelo. It takes time and this leaves room for conflicts of authority between published data. And the following exchange on my recent work on EV8 based on the EuroVelo GPX, if not formulated in pleasant terms, raises a very valid point on the conflict of authority with local observations: Changeset: 144867206 | OpenStreetMap
1 Like
Some documentation has been added in the OSM wiki.
@all feel free to correct/improve/expand/translate.
2 Likes
@Florange_Grimoire: I have created two new topics, [EuroVelo&OSM Working Group] EV17 and [EuroVelo&OSM Working Group] Superroute or not superroute? Maybe if you switched the first post of this topic to WIki mode, then we could add a list of all topics forked from this one?
3 Likes
In OSM, every user may update any data based on reliable information. Please keep this in mind when defining data structures and mapping processes. These should not be as complex that local mappers and bypassing cycle travellers who detect a deviation of the signposted route from the OSM route either damage data structures or refrain from mapping by fear of doing so.
Good example…
3 Likes
Good idea, but I don’t manage to turn it in wiki mode ; I don’t know if I am not looking at the right place or if I am still too new on the forum and I don’t have the right permissions! I’ll see to add the list of topics myself - in any case at the moment they are also accessible with the eurovelo tag.
Thank you for replying to this thread and giving your point of view as a local mapper! Indeed, the point here is not to disconnect information on EuroVelo on OSM from the terrain reality. I agree with you that it is the strength of OSM, to be more up-to-date and reflect what’s really there, compared to the GPX tracks on the EuroVelo website for instance, which contain a lot of mistakes - we are well aware of this. But we cannot avoid it completely given that we receive data from intermediaries (only realistic way to work at transnational level). And as Stéphane indicated in your exchange, this type of discrepancies between the official tracks and the reality on the ground is an excellent case that we can raise with Vélo & Territoires.
I would like to clarify that the objective of this thread is not to conform OSM data to ECF data - it is to clarify a clear and coherent way of mapping EuroVelo routes across Europe, so that it would be easier to access OSM data on EuroVelo, as we know it is more complete than what is available on EuroVelo.com. NECCs decide on the itineraries of EuroVelo routes. But if the information they send us does not correspond to what’s signed on the ground, we wish to be aware of it so we can discuss it with them.
2 Likes
You have to be a “regular” to be able to make an own post into wiki. Maybe a moderator could do that, @moderators ?
1 Like
Indeed, I can create this extra thread (I’ll do it when I have some more time - tonight or in coming days).
I think that we need to be very careful with this. As your discussion with @rainerU indicated, we cannot trust the GPX tracks received from NECCs to reflect perfectly the current reality on the ground. In France, indeed, Vélo & Territoires receives updates yearly from local authorities, and then sends all updated sections to us. In other countries, some NECCs don’t have this kind of system and data can be more outdated. In countries with no NECC, the GPX tracks have in some cases not been updated for years, as we didn’t have someone sending us updates. That’s why Knooppuntnet is such a good tool, to identify these issues…
And of course, routes with nothing on the ground should probably not be mapped at all, as we are discussing here. But NECCs are officially responsible for EuroVelo routes in their countries, and deciding where they go. They can decide to modify an itinerary or delete one. If this happens, and there are no signs on the ground, I think that OSM data needs to follow. That’s where the management question is more important.
I’ll think a bit about it and we’ll discuss it more in the new thread
1 Like
Tell me what buttons to press in what order and I’ll do it.
Edit: Actually, no I won’t. Despite this having a “tagging” tag it’s not in the “tagging” category below “help and support”, so I’m not a moderator here.
The documentation, (such as it is - it’s properly beware of the leopard hidden) is here, and the least hard way of finding that is from this link which is labelled “new user’s guide” in the sidebar that desktop users see.
1 Like
Here it’s first clicking the ... icon to get to the wrench:
First step: get the whole set of menu icons:
Then hovering the wrench icon:
I believe it’s more of “No I can’t” than “No, I won’t”