Changeset: 88962380
adjusted route 1 based on community feedback - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157189442617155&set=p.10157189442617155&type=3&theater It's better to take the KVR rather than thehighway getting into Penticton
Closed by Bike Across Canada Route Network
Tags
build | 2.5-83-g28c84372 |
---|---|
created_by | Potlatch 2 |
version | 2.5 |
Discussion
-
Comment from keithonearth
I'm unclear what this "route 1" is. At present, are you actively developing it with a group on facebook?
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
Route 1 is 1 of 3 primary routes across Canada that most people take; Route 1 being the most popular route across the country. It goes to Cape Spear, NL
Available on https://www.trailforks.com/route/1010000-mainline-1-victoria-bc-to-cape-spear-nl-7-212km-6-594-8km-cycling-and-617-2km-ferries/ and https://www.routeyou.com/en-ca/route/view/6876869/cycle-route/1010000-mainline-1-victoria-bc-to-cape-spear-nl-7-212km-6-594-8km-cycling-and-617-2km-ferries and 6 other track sharing websites. It could be a few months before it all gets added it. It's being added in slowly to get more local feedback. -
Comment from keithonearth
So they are crowd sourced routes of convention, not officially defined ones? Would it be fair to call them recommended routes?
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
The tag 'state=proposed' indicates that it's not officially defined.
Instead of a small group of beaurocrats defining a National Cycling Route Network, this Network is designed by those who have actually done the trip.
Once the whole network is shown here on Openstreetmap cyclemap (and other renderings) the people who would actually use the network can provide feedback, and only after its community accepted, then it makes sense to approach each municipality along route to get official designation.Doing otherwise, the same mistake of the Great Trail/Trans Canada Trail would happen where it's just a mixmash of random 'things' with many user types mixed together. This was because the entire network wasn't made public at the proposal stage, only a few people saw it and there was no clear definition as to what it was. There still to this day, many people from around the world who look at the Great Trail and think it's a National Cycling Route Network only to be disappointed.
Also note that I am working with the Canada Bikes association, while this isn't part of the push for a National Cycling strategy yet, once this proposed network becomes more widely known, it could be part of it and political will solicited for it.
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
Slightly long-winded, but I hope it makes sense. :)
-
Comment from keithonearth
It totally makes sense, I also think the Trans-Canada trail has many issues too. Even the parts of it that are a bike route are often poor. I think that developing new routes publicly, with many adjustments is a good thing.
All that said, I'm not sure if it is in keeping with the OSM policies or within OSM's scope. My understanding was that the purposed tag was for routes that have been officially purposed, not for active crowdsourced projects in development.
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
That would be for the OSM overlords to decide.
Keep in mind that the TCT/TGT has been wrongly designated as a NCN in openstreetmap for over 12 years and nothing was done about it. I didn't remove it when it was added because I wanted to replace it with something more useful. And this is exactly what I am doing now. The TGT/TCT segments are being removed as the proposed Bike Across Canada Route Network is being added.
If the OSM overlords do decide to prohibit the proposed Bike Across Canada Route Network from the map, it would be great to know about this sooner rather than wait 6-8 months when it's all been meticulously added in and a whole lot of time spent with this process.
The alternative of course is to build my own map using free data sources and have the proposed Network added in and made available as an .osm file to be used by map makers as they wish. Much harder, but it is an alternative, which might be done in the future - depending on how much effort I want to put into it.
I'm wondering however, if this proposed Network were to be formally recognized by the Canada Bikes Organization (and published somewhere), would that then make it 'formally Proposed'? -
Comment from keithonearth
There seem to be a few misconceptions involved in your understanding of OSM.
There are no "Overloards". Most decisions are made collaboratively. The only exception is when the question of vandalism comes up, and an editor does not respect other editors opionins. Then the Data Working Group becomes involved. If the DWG determines something is vandalism, they have the power to ban a user, but usually do their best to come to an agreement w/o taking that step.
You are mistaken about the TCT being incorrectly mapped as a NCN. It was correct. As I've said before, just because the entire route isn't designed for cyclists does not exclude the sections from a NCN tag here on OSM. The correct approach is to have the parts that are designated for bikes in a NCN relation, and the parts that are designated for foot as NWN. Your edits have damaged the route, removing many parts that should be included in the cycle relation, but still including many sections that are `foot=no` in what is now a tagged as a walking route.
You have done this while criticizing the planning of the route, and promoting an informal alternative. It looks a bit like vandalism, but I'll assume it was done out of ignorance.
I will be changing the tag back to NCN, and trying to fix the relation, by removing the foot only sections, and adding back the bicycle only sections.
OSM is for collaboratively mapping reality, not for collaboratively conceiving new routes, or promoting them.
I've put a question on help.osm.org, regarding the requirements for a proposed route, here: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/76051/
As you can see, I'm not the only one who has issues with your approach, and I have been advised to delete your route relations. Feel free to comment there, but it does not look like you meet the requirements to keep these relations in OSM. I hope you can understand that it would be inappropriate for *anyone* to be be able to add any route that they just think is a good idea.
A reasonable rule of thumb is whether the group proposing the route has the legal and logistical capability to signpost the route. You have dismissed the possibility of signposting the route, and called it vandalism. As such I do not think you have the legal capability to signpost the route.
OSM not Strava for adding "segments", or RideWithGPS for sharing your favourite bike tour. Those sites exist, and you are welcome to use them.
Another option would be to display your routes using uMap: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ for example, something like this: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/traversee-des-pyrenees_335454#10/42.8755/-0.9998 would look good.
You would then be able to have control over the route, have it displayed more clearly, and accept changes to the route via facebook, or whatever other social networking sites you favour, without editors like me questioning your methods.
It wouldn't be too much work to get a site like https://bikepacking.com set up, using uMap and wordpress or something similar. You could have photos, route descriptions, and comments.
Or you could keep it very simple, and link to a demo uMap from your facebook group page.
You are always welcome to add objectively existing bicycle (or other) infrastructure here, which will be very useful for cyclists, but promoting your casually defined routes is inappropriate.
-
Comment from keithonearth
Additionally, in the interests of transparency, and to try to consolidate this discussion that has become spread out over a few changesets, I'll link to the other changesets we've discussed this on:
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
Thanks for taking the time to get into detail on this issue. Much appreciated than if we were to discuss this 8 months from now after spending that time adding it in.
I've reached out to Canada Bikes, just waiting for a reply.
On the topic of the TCT/TGT
https://thegreattrail.ca/news/4-things-may-not-know-great-trail/
"The trail is not' .....
One Long Continuous Cycling or Hiking Path"
They also tweeted this.
https://twitter.com/TheGreatTrail/status/1035188337919909891?s=19
"Hi Sam, we actually never said it was a National Cycling Network".
Therefore, there is no intention on ever current cycling segments connected. So designating cycling segments as NCN is not appropriate. Do you have a source for where you think it should be NCN? (I know it's a common misconception when looking at signage on the ground)Also, I'm checking the talk-ca mailing list, waiting to see if there is discussion.
Great to hear input from Andy Allan, it's much appreciated :) as well as pointing me to another track sharing website. (I've added it to 7 already, another won't hurt)
-
Comment from keithonearth
I'm sorry you are having such a hard time understanding this. The TCT is a multi-use trail, with many sections that are specifically intended for bicycle use, those sections are tagged with the `ncn` tag on osm. The fact that it is not a continuous national cycle network is irrelevant. You also quote that it is not a continuous hiking path, yet are the one who has changed it's tagging to nwn.
It really doesn't matter if you understand or not. I've asked you not to edit the TCT relation, and you've agreed. As long as you stick with that agreement we won't have issues.
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
The tag ncn means 'National Cycle Route', which the TCT/TGT has stated (themselves) that it is not. So tagging those segments that are cycling only is not correct. It's misleading for anyone looking at the map. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:network%3Dncn
Yes, I remembered the '4 things you might not know' website after the fact, (and caused some more frustration) even though the TGT facebook group members agreed on the idea that it should really be tagged as a nwn (although it is not). The rationale was that walking is the most common recreation for it (to try and give it some sense of usefulness) - even though it's not a National Walking Trail, and strangely should not be shown as one. Even though people have written books claiming that they 'Hiked the Great Trail'.
It's not a personal vendetta against the TCT/TGT it's against logic and facts.
"A national cycling route network is a nationwide network of designated long-distance cycling routes found in various countries around the world for the purposes of bicycle tourism. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_cycling_route_networkThe TGT/TCT clearly does not fit into that description.
... And in related news, I've taken up the suggestion to add it to uMap. I very impressive website. Looks like it should be relatively straight forward to pick out the roads/paths and save it as an .osm and .GPX file for each segment.
While it would be nicer to include it directly in OSM as proposed route relations, we await a response from Canada Bikes as to how to best proceed. Giving a week to respond seems fair.
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/bike-across-canada-route-network_489471Perhaps the TCT/TGT could be added to uMap and removed from OSM? I do agree that it should be removed as a nwn designation.
What's crazy is that in 1992, it's claimed that IS related to a National Cycling Route - despite themselves claiming it isn't. .. certainly is a National Embarrassment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_Canada_Trail
"The creation of the trail was born of Canada's 125th anniversary celebrations in 1992.[4] It has its counterparts in such other greenway routes as the 12 EuroVelo routes, the UK's National Cycle Network, and the United States Numbered Bicycle Routes network." -
Comment from keithonearth
Good work on uMap! It looks really good, and like it will be a good way of representing your data, and will be a very helpful resource to people cycling across Canada.
It really doesn't matter if the TCT fits the definitions of a National Cycle-network outside of OSM, what matters is if it is a sensible way to structure the data in OSM.
You quote from the OMS wiki. The TCT fits that definition. I guess your logic is that it's not a continuous bicycle network across the country, therefor it's not a network at all. This is simply not the case, nor is it required by the definition you provide.
The opinions expressed in conversations on your facebook group don't have any weight here, it is not helpful for you to report them.
The sections of the TCT I've ridden in BC and the Yukon have issues, mostly poor route choice, but it's still useful. I would definitely not call it "a national embarrassment", and the fact that you do so makes me question your statement that you don't have a personal vendetta against the TCT.
-
Comment from alester
If you don't mind, I'd like to join this discussion to make a few suggestions:
1. I wasn't aware that some significant changes were already being made to the existing relations, and I bet other Canadian contributors weren't either. There clearly needs to be wider discussion on how to handle the TCT/TGT in OSM. This should be handled through the talk-ca mailing list.
2. In a separate talk-ca discussion, the matter of these proposed routes should be discussed with the wider Canadian community. Like keithonearth, I'm not sure they should be in OSM at this time, but am willing to participate in a discussion where my mind could be changed.
3. I think Sam should provide full disclosure regarding his background with OSM. Namely, that he:
-had previously contributed under a different account years ago (acrosscanadatrails)
-allowed his far-reaching edits to be redacted at the time of the license change, leaving behind a lot of broken data and burning bridges
-had previously created unofficial cycle routes in the OSM database in the Victoria area (and possibly other areas), apparently in support of an intended bookFor now, all editing of the TCT/TGT and the proposed routes should stop until wider consensus is achieved, and then a coordinated effort can be undertaken to make sure the OSM data makes sense.
-
Comment from alester
Also, I'm willing to give some leeway in discussing the TCT/TGT project in general. While I don't believe it was a "national embarrassment", it wasn't a glowing success story either. Some good did come from it by triggering the creation of a number of good trails, but it fell significantly short of the original vision. The original vision has been watered down so many times that it's almost been lost in the mists of time, but it was originally going to be a pair of parallel trails for non-motorized use and separated from roadways by enough distance to mask traffic noise and reduce the chance of collisions. When I did some research not long after it was announced to be "completed", 65-80% of it was on road shoulders or water routes, so it isn't even close to the original vision. The stretch of the TCT/TGT where the 1985 cycling tragedy occurred west of Calgary (the original inspiration for the project) was designated as using the highway shoulder and missed the point in a most distressing fashion. As it stands today, I don't think those currently involved with the TCT/TGT even know what it is themselves or what their goal is/was, so there's no point using their input to guide our decisions here.
-
Comment from keithonearth
Give some leeway in discussing the TCT/TGT in general? I'm not sure what you mean. I do think you are missing the point. It's not a question of it it is good or bad. The big question is whether or not it objectivly exists. To which any reasonable person will say yes it exists. As such it should be included here. When you talk at such length about how shitty it is, I suspect you are biased against it. I think this is why you do not want the sections that are designated for bicycle use to be tagged as part of bicycle relations.
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
*gets out the popcorn*
Nice to hear that there will be discussion on the talk-ca mailing list, check it each week from the archives and it's been very quiet.
I see that the rendering of the proposed NCN routes is now a thick dashed brown line and ref ID number isn't shown until the closer zoom. Looks nice, but it might be confused with a dirt trail network. (Something I still want to build in the future).
The Canada Bikes Organization board will meet and discuss my ideas presented, it's unclear if it will take weeks or months. There is an AGM this fall, where I do intend on sharing the project and making the case for adoption (it not done so already by then).
I see that there are now 2 editors who have requested a stop in editing, that seems reasonable.
I think the best use of my free time now is to examine the proposed network and look at the quality. I'm adding the improvements to the 13 regional maps - uploading the segments to uMap seems easier as exporting isn't as easy as possible on other track sharing websites.
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
There has been no discussion on the talk-ca mailing list as suggested before moving forward.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2020-August/thread.html -
Comment from keithonearth
Sam, just so you know, "getting the popcorn", is usually used to indicate taking enjoyment to watching conflict and disagreement. I hope you didn't mean it that way.
I hope things work out ok with the Canada Bikes Organization, and they are willing to signpost your routes. It'll be a major undertaking.
You seem to be right, there has been no talk about your changes on the mailing list. You probably should have posted there prior to making such sweeping changes to the Canada's bicycle routes. I am dubious that it is necessary for me to discuss the changes that I've made. I've removed your fictitious routes, and retagged the TCT/TGT back to how it has been for over 10 years. I've cleaned up the relations around Vancouver, removing foot only sections from the bicycle relation, and removing bicycle only sections from the foot relation. I think that tagging all sections, irrespective if they are designated for foot and/or bicycle, as a hiking route is unhelpful and misleading. There are plenty of sections that are specifically designated for one or the other, and having that indicated on the map is good.
I know, you point out that the TCT/TGT is not a bike route, you do not need to link to another facebook page. It is a multi-use trail, that includes cycling over much of it. It is useful to map these parts, and the bicycle route relation is the most useful way to do this.
I feel that you have ignored a few important points that have been brought up. You've ignored my post to help.osm.org that confirms the approach we've taken to multi-use routes. You've ignored my request to post the username You've ignored alester's report that you've used the account of acrosscanadatrails, in the past, did something similar.
The fact that you view my request to stop adding fictitious routes as a request to stop editing entirely also worries me. I've never said you should stop editing, just that you shouldn't add these routes. You are welcome to add things that really exist. Adding real bike infrastructure is a useful thing to do.
But it seems like the only reason you are here is to promote your personal routes, and that is not helpful.
alester, thank you for your helpful information. I'm sorry I didn't say so in my last post here. And I'm sorry if my reply came across as dismissive. I agree with your assessment of the TCT/TGT, but feel that assessments of its quality distracts from the question of how to represent it here. I think that how we're doing it is good, other than the fact that little of it is mapped.
If we had all/most of it mapped, showing real gaps and sections on the highway, it would be more useful for map users. As it is now the majority of gaps in the network are just unmapped sections.
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
https://twitter.com/samvekemans/status/1035193654384648192?s=19
I am the author of the OSM Wiki article about the TCT and encouraged the national wrong tagging of it in the first place.
Just because it has been wrong for over 10years, doesn't make it right.
-
Comment from keithonearth
Of course just because it's been one way for over 10 years doesn't make it right. I never said it did, I said that I was dubious that it is necessary for me to discuss the changes that I've made.
You continue to ignore significant questions that have been asked of you. Please address the statement that you've used the account of `acrosscanadatrails`, in the past, and engaged in similar edits.
My point of view continues to be that the TCT/TGT is a multi-use trail, with many sections designated for use by bicycle, and some sections designated exclusively for bicycle use. Those sections should be included in a relation tagged as a bicycle route.
I've done some surveying on the part of the route around Vancouver, and have cleaned up a bunch of foot-only sections that were in the cycle-route. Most of the route I've been on is designated for foot and bicycle use. There are a few bits where pedestrians and cyclists are directed to take separate routes. Additional there are many sections, like around Vancouver's Sea Wall, that are on segregated paths, that we have mapped as separate ways.
It's useful to map these separate routes, and tag them appropriately.
I am also concerned that you are trying to trying to brigand the discussion here, trying to drum up support on facebook and twitter.
-
Comment from Bike Across Canada Route Network
Sunday September 27th is the Velo Canada Bikes AGM.
The topic of Schrödinger's Trail which is equally both NOT and IS a National Cycling Route Network and should or should not be tagged as such and is or is not interfering with (anyone's) attempt to build a designated National Cycling Route Network. (BTW the organization is so polite that they don't want to rock the boat as it's a very delicate discussion to have) -
Comment from keithonearth
I don't think if it's a National Cycling Route or not is a meaningful question. It is a multi-use trail that includes bikes for most of it.
Here, on OSM, it makes the most sense to include the bike parts as a relation with the ncn tag.
I think focusing too much on if it *really* is a National Cycle Route or is not is unhelpful.
The route, despite it's shortcomings, is real. Our tagging scheme, despite it's shortcomings, is what we've got.
In a messy world we have it mapped as well as it can be.
Ways (5)
- Skaha Lake Road (834105082), v1
- 2nd Street (834105083), v1
- Skaha Lake Road (834105084), v1
- 2nd Street (35886459), v3
- Skaha Lake Road (35892057), v7
Relations (4)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |