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
KPN dont render only few countries.
One could:
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.
It work well if:
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:
Action point: Reaching conclusions within the thread, updating the wiki page accordingly, and starting to make changes to OSM relations where needed.
Action points: Have all EuroVelo routes listed here with gpx references, or maybe per country like here, and act on the discrepancies.
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
Some documentation has been added in the OSM wiki.
@all feel free to correct/improve/expand/translate.
@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?
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…
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.
You have to be a “regular” to be able to make an own post into wiki. Maybe a moderator could do that, @moderators ?
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
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.
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”
Hello, I’m one of the two GIS specialists for Vélo & Territoires (V&T), the French NECC. Thank you @rainerU for your contributions and your report on this section of EV8 near Argelès-sur-Mer. I’m gonna report this problem to the Pyrénées-Orientales department.
I support Florence when she says that our goal is not to conform OSM to our data! It’s to organize data transfer and reutilization between our organisations (ECF and NECCs) and OSM database and community. Sometimes OSM has more up-to-date data than us, sometimes it’s the contrary. A tool like KPN and the amazing involvement in this working group from the OSM community can also help us to show the advantages of collaborative mapping to local authorities, and move towards more involvement from them in this process.
They are well aware of the situation as one can see on the maps on their web site. Nevertheless, I informed them about the situation on site in a mail in June.
This is indeed how we do it in USA for United States Bicycle Route System - OpenStreetMap Wiki. It is a process we carefully evolved in 2011-2013 via hundreds of emails among true stakeholders in OSM (important people and elements of what became OSM-US) and various elements of national bicycle network route planning, signing and implementation (state Departments of Transportation, the architect of the System as part of Adventure Cycling Association, a “helper” to state DOTs, AASHTO — the USA’s national-level highway/cycleway network numbering organization…). See the “Proposed” section of the wiki linked above.
We define a “high bar standard” before the state=proposed tag can be applied to a route, and call it a “very high bar standard” at the penultimate step as the route goes “on ballot” (to AASHTO from any DOT who might apply for a new route to be added to the System / network). After AASHTO’s ballot (the final step), Approved routes have their state=proposed tag removed, and (in OpenCycleMap, for example) dashed (red) lines become solid (red) lines. (Or purple in cyclosm, or medium-dark-blue on waymarkedtrails…).
This has been working well for over a decade in OSM, see .From Sandbox to Construction Zone to a Beautiful National Network of Bicycle Routes | OpenStreetMap US .
I don’t favor “eurovelo” as a tag in OSM, but it might be useful as a hashtag (or similar) to develop and/or communicate among “yourselves” (people concerned with well-mapping EuroVelo in OSM). There is no need for special casing or “asking Marc,” as all of this (the way the USA maps network=ncn, which can work for network=icn) in the USA “just simply already works.” Other linked threads / topics (here) seem like a good idea. I’m hoping this can help reduce re-inventing wheels.
