Hello,
According to the wiki, hiking routes should have only iwn, nwn, rwn and lwn network values, and bicycle routes should have only icn, ncn, rcn, lcn network values. I noticed there are a lot of obviously wrong network tags on bicycle, foot and hiking routes, which are easy to fix i.e. bicycle tags on hiking/foot routes and hiking/foot tags on bicycle routes (one example: overpass turbo).
I propose to automatically change relations:
if route is hiking or foot and network is icn to network=iwn
if route is hiking or foot and network is ncn to network=nwn
if route is hiking or foot and network is rcn to network=rwn
if route is hiking or foot and network is lcn to network=lwn
if route is bicycle and network is iwn to network=icn
if route is bicycle and network is nwn to network=ncn
if route is bicycle and network is rwn to network=rcn
if route is bicycle and network is lwn to network=lcn
As I don’t know how to make automatic changes if the proposal will be accepted, I would like to ask someone to do it.
Firstly, I’d suggest doing out center if you don’t need the full geometry of routes.
Secondly, your query is for routes “like” route=bicycle. Any example your query might find is this one, which was added as route=bicycle;horse;foot (which is in this case correct - I’m familiar with that one, and watched its progress from industrial railway line to multi-use path over 30 years).
Changing that test to an “equals” does still find problems, but you won’t be able to fix it automatically. Just for that query, you’ll need to ask yourself for each one (example) is “is this a bicycle route wrongly classified as network=lwn, is it a foot route wrongly classified as route=bicycle, or is it in fact neither”. My example might actually be neither, or perhaps part of a longer route. More investigation (and perhaps survey) needed.
Thanks for the overpass query. It detected 1 problem in my country, which I will look into. An automated fix is not applicable to this route, it requires mapper knowledge or survey to determines what the ground truth is.
I did a few spot checks on the query results in Spain, with similar results. In most cases the relations were tagged with a list of route types, in varying combinations of hiking, bicycle, mtb, and horse. I did find one case with route=bicycle and network=lwn. But again it wasn’t obvious whether it is really more of a cycling route than a walking route, or vice versa, or a bit of both.
Generally there is not much guidance for mappers on how to map multi activity routes so it is not surprising that practice varies.
It may not be as good a candidate for an automated fix, as I thought, but what about MapRoulette Challenge? It may be a better option, of course with an improved overpass query, the one in the first post is not really good as already pointed out.
OT: I would point out that making the network scope type specific has always been silly, simply using local, regional, national, international etc would be more than enough without having a myriad of values that do not convey any additional information.
This (something which requires real-world knowledge) isn’t really a good fit for a Maproulette challenge (there are significant other problems with Maproulette, but that’s another issue).
Instead I’d suggest using the forum to engage with the communities concerned. Perhaps post an overpass query (the “equals” version, not the “~” version) per country, to the relevant forum and ask local people there to investigate whether the relations you’ve found are indeed incorrect?
Additionally, for the few cases I checked in France thanks to this Overpass query, we are facing situations where routes are designed for both hiking and cycling.