There’s an international hiking route from Vienna (Austria) to Istanbul (Turkey), named “Sultans Trail”, website: https://sultanstrail.com/
It’s already mapped in OSM: Waymarked Trails - Hiking
Although I don’t know the route in detail, I’m quite sure it’s just a virtual route: so no signs or marking along most parts or even all the route. What do you think, should we keep the route in OSM? Usually just hiking or cycling routes where signs/Markings are present along its ways are mapped in OSM.
I wrote: “so no signs or marking along most parts or even all the route.” 
Is the whole trail marked with this stickers? Also the complete Austrian part for example?
I think Tag:route=hiking - OpenStreetMap Wiki second bullet applies: the people behind the Sultan’s Trail have been working on it for years and are actively maintaining the virtual route, though not recently maintaining the on-the-ground singposting. I’ve seen stickers showing the route a few years ago here in Sofia, but most have gone by now.
FWIW, in France we have debated replacing the OR between the two bullet points with an AND, so as to avoid mapping “illegally signed routes”.
First question: Who introduced the second bullet in this Wiki-topic, has there been a discussion before regarding this?
At least in the German-speaking Wiki of Cycling-Routes (which are very similar to Hiking-Routes) wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Fahrradrouten routes which just are based on this second bullet should not being mapped. This is also consensus for hiking routes within Austrian’s OSM community.
Second question: do you think that the operators behind “Sultan Trail” are a “well know organisation” (e.g European Union or something like “EuroVelo” for European cycling networks), or “an organization that is well known or officially responsible for this function (e.g. mountaineering clubs, tourism boards, …)” like stated in the Wiki-text?
This discussion is probably of interest.
I would think that pretty much depends on the local situation. In areas where signposted routes are kind of everywhere, communities tend to insist on signposts where this is more relaxed in other parts of the world.
I had already changed the route in Austria to “proposed:route” once. See also
Changeset: 138311798 | OpenStreetMap
Changeset: 141940706 | OpenStreetMap
edit:
I’ve invited the user who has restored the route. Interestingly, @MS50 had actually deleted it once himself after realizing, that the route he entered did not meet the criteria for a waymarked route
Changeset: 114475815 | OpenStreetMap
Changeset: 104064029 | OpenStreetMap
For the record, I would be against removing Sultan’s Trail from OSM. The organization behind it is small but fairly active, the route is maintained and advertised, and the route relation(s) are apparently used for navigation by the hikers. Removing an actually useful route because it does not tick all the Rulez would come up a) unnecessarily cruel and b) bad PR for a map that advertises itself as a to-go resource for outdoor activities.
Acknowledging my whataboutism, I’m much more concerned about Flixbus “public transport” routes such as 993 (and I suppose there are many similar ones): why should we maintain a 5000-member, 1800 km relation for a single, once-a-week bus line, with 5 (five) stops in total? And more important, why should anyone care about anything more than the information already on their website?
I would also feel sorry if the Sultan’s Trail would not be on OSM: it’s one of the 4 long distance hiking routes in Bulgaria (the other are the E3, E4 and E8 routes). I am much more concerned about it being named after a person who is seen as an occupant and oppressor by most of the inhabitants of the lands it passes through and therefore insulting to them, but that’s not an OSM concern… It may very well be the reason why the trail mark stickers in Bulgaria have disappeared, though.
Ping @MS50 who maintains the route on OSM.
In France we worked a lot on the rules because of a private initiative that fell exactly under the same category as what you describe. It was felt that we needed a rule to be able to say no to virtual routes at some point, and we have been happy with that a couple of times since then (even though it deprived us from an interesting initiative, until it gets supported by local authorities).
Well the usefulness is debatable, if you can’t trust the map that the routes have actual representation in the real world and actually waymarked trails are obscured on the map by suggested routes. There are plenty of other websites where you can share route suggestions and gpx files.
The Sultans Trail has been on OSM before, but since we concluded that the marking at the time might not meet standards, we removed it. Since then, we have improved our trail marking, and even though it might not meet Austrian standards along the entire route, we believe it is sufficiently marked to qualify as a “marked route”. The route is inspected annually; as a result, maps are updated, problems are addressed, and new developments are taken into account. During these trips, the markings are renewed and/or improved. The Sultans Trail Foundation applied for membership in ERA, but its organisation model (one member per country) stood in the way of membership for an organisation representing a multinational trail such as the Sultans Trail. We welcome cooperation with local and international parties who are also interested in promoting and developing hiking and cycling in south-eastern Europe.
On behalf of the Sultans Trail Foundation, Max Smits, Trailcoodinator.
Hi Max,
thanks for your explanations! Still: Some questions regarding the Austrian part of the route:
Hi,
I will be happy to answer any more questions.
Best,
Max
