[EuroVelo&OSM Working Group] Improving EuroVelo routes tagging

As announced in this thread, we’re creating sub-discussions to better focus on the main issues at hand, and avoid discussions to become too mixed up.

Here was my summary on current tagging issues, to which I am adding more comments, aiming to kick off this thread:

  1. How to organise long routes? This proposal from Najita looks very relevant for EuroVelo routes. I see that it is still a draft proposal. I would suggest to follow how it goes and to aligh with it. When the proposal is approved, we can edit the EuroVelo wiki page accordingly. Any comments, or do you see any issues with this proposal?
    Maybe something to mention is a potential unclarity between OSM and EuroVelo.com. On the EuroVelo website, some routes (not all) are divided into touristic transnational “stages” (such as this one), while the route tracks are divided into “daily sections”, as can be seen upon download of the GPX. But I think that the “stage” tag used for EuroVelo routes on OSM corresponds to daily sections, right? These are of more practical use anyway.

  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. This is where there will likely be unresolved discussions, but we can try to agree on something logical and clear.
    As discussed in the other thread, here we should use specific tags, such as the proposed tag. Here there is also mention of a planned tag. This distinction would potentially allow to differentiate between EuroVelo routes that are actually under constructions, and those that are a proposal of the best option but where no development works are ongoing. I would also suggest not to overdo it and add to OSM routes that don’t exist, as it may be worse than doing nothing. But for the bad routes that are already mapped, it would allow to clarify their status and lower users’ expectations.
    But I believe that we should have a different solution for routes that are well-developed, but just not signed with EuroVelo signs, as is the case a lot in UK and Germany, for instance. Would it is an option to use some kind of “sign=no” tag? But how to do when it is signed at national level (signed as UK NCN or German D-route) but not as EuroVelo? I am not very familiar with the usual OSM logic so I’d like your opinions here.

  3. Clarifying forward/backward issues (mostly cycle routes, but also applies to some hiking routes). I am afraid I cannot help much on this one because on the EuroVelo website, I don’t have the possibility currently to upload different tracks for “forward” and “backward” itineraries. So I cannot provide tracks for the other, “non-official” direction of the route and there will likely be differences between EuroVelo.com and OSM that remain. If someone wishes to work on this, however, and is looking for missing tracks in another direction, feel free to contact me and I can ask our national partners.

Action point: Reaching conclusions within the thread, updating the wiki page accordingly, and starting to make changes to OSM relations where needed.

16 posts - 6 participants

Read full topic


Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/eurovelo-osm-working-group-improving-eurovelo-routes-tagging/106784