Proposal: creation of a working group for a more coherent integration of EuroVelo routes on OSM

I have semi-automated the split of route sections, and nearly finished splitting EV4 in France according to the structure of the EuroVelo GPX.

There were ordering issues in the last two original sections (out of five or six) as well as a mostly duplicate section, I am trying to devise a sorting method that preserves roles. So far, JOSM sorting apparently breaks them and moving members from one relation to another removes them too, as far as I can tell.

There were ordering issues in the last two sections (out of five or six), I am trying to devise a sorting method that preserves roles. So far, JOSM sorting apparently breaks them and moving members from one relation to another removes them too, as far as I can tell.

The roles are about the current relation, so if you add the same member to a different relation it is clear it won’t have the same role as it has in another relation (there is no such thing as “moving” a member into another relationturns out you actually can move members from one relation editor window to another in Josm). For your purpose I think you could duplicate the relation, and remove what you don’t want (also multiple times, e.g. first break down to countries, then to regions, etc.), this will preserve order and roles.

That’s what I do for splitting, what I need now is to see if I can adapt it to reordering.

In JOSM you can move members between relations, from one relation editor window into another.


Regarding the daily sections that the EuroVelo GPX tracks are cut into, actually it’s a mix: in some cases, these sections have been carefully chosen by our NECCs (route operators at national level) as being a good distance to cycle in one day, based on distance, elevation, available services, etc. In other cases, it’s random and such an analysis has never been done. It can also happen that we change the daily section division when our NECCs asked us to (most recently, we modified the daily sections division of EuroVelo 8 in Croatia). Basically it’s a work in progress.

But yes, in general it would be best for us to have the same division into daily sections. When we download infrastructure data from OSM, it would then make it much easier to connect it to our dabatase.

Btw, thanks a lot for your work on the routes! Indeed GPX tracks are downloadable from, but sometimes the quality is a little bit lower than original tracks. You can let me know if you need anything specific and we can discuss it when we have a call.


Hello !
I completely agree, for me this is one of the main projects in the OSM EuroVelo Database: clearly distinguishing between what is already developed and usable by cyclists, and what is planned (with the tag state = proposed).

1 Like

Concerning the EV5, I have already done this work to distinguish the developed France 1 part from the planned France 1 part.

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 :face_with_open_eyes_and_hand_over_mouth:).

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.


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 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.



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 :slight_smile:

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:
  1. How to organise long routes? Also looking at this proposal from Najita
  2. 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)
  3. 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 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:
  1. Rendering all European countries on KPN (or was this solved by the background choosing?)
  2. 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)
  3. 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.


@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?