I changed the name tag of the TCT/TGT bicycle and foot relations with this edit. It was accidental. I did it so I could see which is which while editing the relations. and forgot to change them back before uploading the changeset. I apologize for the error.

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.

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.

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.

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:

changeset/87108609

changeset/88215490

Our discussion about this has become spread out over a few changesets, in the interest of consolidating it, I'll only be commenting on this changeset: changeset/88962380

Our discussion about this has become spread out over a few changesets, in the interest of consolidating it, I'll only be commenting on this changeset: changeset/88962380

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.

Hi alester, could you confirm your source for the bicycle access on this paved trail? Local knowledge? Survey? Something else?

It often takes weeks or months to come to consensus on these things. I will not delete the proposed routes you've added for the time being, but I think it's only fair to warn you that I think that deletion will be the likely outcome.

I find the damage you've done to the Trans-Canada Trail more troublesome.

I'm not satisfied with the changes to the Trans-Canada Trail that you've made. The fact that your facebook group hasn't complained about them is irrelevant. I've not gotten any complaints here about my facebook posts either.

There are disadvantages to organizing outside of the usual OSM channels like that. I don't expect OSM editors will give much weight to the opinions of a facebook group. I know I don't.

It would be far better to use OSM communication tools, like the mailing lists, help.osm.org, and the wiki.

A link between your regular account and this one would also be a good idea. If nothing else, it would defend you against accusations of sockpuppetery.

I'm still of the opinion that ridewithgps or similar websites.

Oh, and I think you misunderstood the comment about signage on the route. They weren't suggesting random individuals put up signage, which would be vandalism. But that appropriate organizations put up signage.

I think developing these routes is a very useful thing, but I'm not convinced that OSM is the place to do it.

I see that you had been informed about potential issues with the approach you are taking previous to my message more recently (changeset/88962380). I think it would be wise to stop adding these routes you are developing on facebook until there is more consensus about whether or not these recommended routes are appropriate for OSM.

Keep up the hard work on ridewithgps, or similar sites like that. I'm sure lots of people will find it useful.

I see the confusion. The route isn't designed for cyclists for the entire network. But many sections are designed for cyclists. Many multi-use routes are represented on OSM by multiple route relations. The sections that are for bicycles are contained in a bicycle relation, the ones for foot are contained in a foot relation. I suppose other uses (like horseback) could be contained in other relations, but I do not have experience with this. I had thought we had two relations in BC, one for bicycle, and one for foot. Did you delete the relation for foot, by any chance?

I would like to keep the sections that are open to bikes in their relation, and the sections that are open to foot likewise in their relation.

Also I'm not convinced that linking to your own posts on facebook is useful.

This edit changes the Trans-Canada Trail back to being classified exclusively as a foot route. I see that this user has made *extensive* changes to the Trans-Canada Trail in the 6 weeks they have been signed up with OSM. They have twice changed it from a bicycle route, to a hiking route, despite this relation existing as a bike route for almost 10 years. It is important to realize that while the Trans-Canada Trail may not be a bicycle route in it's entirety, the sections that had been in this relation were specifically for bicycles. Many of those sections have been removed, and replaced by foot sections, but other parts are cycleways and remain in this relation.

I would ask the user "Bike Across Canada Route Network" to refrain from making any more edits to the Trans-Canada Trail (aka The Great Trail) until other editors can figure out what has been changed, and if it was appropriate and accurately reflects the situation on the ground. I'm concerned that some of the edits might be construed as vandalism, especially as you seem to be promoting alternative trans-Canada routes.

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.

So they are crowd sourced routes of convention, not officially defined ones? Would it be fair to call them recommended routes?

I'm unclear what this "route 1" is. At present, are you actively developing it with a group on facebook?

Small world!

I"ll bet the right thing to do would be tag sections as pedestrian and parts as service. Although I've always been bothered by how the `highway=pedestrian` is used for such a wide variety of very different ways from something like The Mall in Shimla, to the galees in varanasi.

Is "Suffering Moses" a houseboat? I stayed in a houseboat right by Zero Bridge. I think it's a great part of town to stay in. Convenient location, and it's great being able to walk on and off a houseboat w/o needing a Shikar.

I'd love to go back, but don't feel good about the political situation in the near future. It wasn't great in 2016 either, and most of my mapping in the valley has been done from the imagery, with very little done from the ground, with the exception of a bit around Zero Bridge, Boulevard Road, and the way to Sonamarg, because I didn't spend much time in the Valley.

Hi Arun, wanted to let you know that I have changed the tagging of a way you tagged as `highway=pedestrian`, back to `=service`. Based on your edit summary, I think you based the tag on the satellite imagery. I visited Srinagar in 2016, and came this way. At the time, some of the road was too narrow for cars, other parts are accessible to cars, and all of it is open for bicycles and motorcycles. I feel that service is a better classification.

I wanted to let you know, in case you had more up to date information than me. Also, I should point out that I did not go West of Zero Bridge.

My changeset: changeset/88743579

Let me know if you feel I've made a mistake, and we can fix it.

Thanks!