Andrum99, hi again

I believe I have now mapped the two low tide alternatives and the three segment loop.

The two low tide alternatives were first map in Changeset: 82207989

Andrum99 , thank you

I am not sure of what your role is. So please identify.

I am a long distance walker preparing for the many trips I hope to now do in 2021.

I have only used the existing material in OSM and referred to much online material to check my bearings.

You will be aware FCP comprised more than 600 elements. OSM guidelines are for 200 to 300. On reflection, using guidnace from the Fife Coastal Path website, the route can be broken in to the segments shown there, all contained within a super relation. The international route known as E2 (which covers several thousand kilometres) uses this strategy.

I will look at all the alternatives, such as low tides, to ensure they do appear, as was my original intention, but not to break the continuity of the main path.

You may care to have a conversation with WayMarkedTrails.org

Kind regards

andrum99, hi
You will have noted my stated intention in nearly all of my updates, to provide a contiguous route that tools such as WayMarkedTrails can display useful things elevation profiles.
I also referred to the website for the Fife Coastal Path in making the changes you refer to. That shows a contiguous route without alternatives.
My practice is to include alternatives, low tide routes for example, in separate routes. This means they still display on maps but not not break the continuity of the principal route.
Happy to have a discussion about all the alternatives not recorded in the FCP's web site with the aim of meeting the needs of planning tools.

Nga mihi

WayMarkedTrails (WMT) does two things.

1) Show the route:
Each element, part of a road, path etc is displayed. WMT does not have much of a concern here: it just shows each element. When we look at them the route appears fully connected, so long as every element in the route has been added to the route relation. In this case "relation/9482456 St. Olav's Path - swedish part"

2) show the elevation profile
When using WMT select the relation above (it has an identifier of a red cross on a white ground) then select "Elevation Profile". When I looked at this a few moments ago it showed an uninterrupted (but bumpy) line from Selanger to the border.
Someone else more recently has created another route relation. This is relation/10524322 St. Olav's Path and has the identifier SO. Select that then select elevation profile. After a few moments you will see quite a disordered jumble and the annotation "Route is potentially unordered or incomplete. Elevation information might be inaccurate."

I chose to work with what seemed the "official" site and with "relation/9482456 St. Olav's Path - swedish part" to get rid of discontinuities to give the profile result you see.

Hope that helps

Kia kaha

PS:
Looks as though someone else has complied on OSM with your suggestion to me.

And I note (as I write) the latest map form the StOlavsleden.com site still shows a start in Sundsvall.

I note I should be able to walk from Sundsvall Station to Selanager. This is under 10 km and so under 2 hours, depending on conditions.

Kia kaha

I think you have an impression I have revised the whole of St Olavsleden to the Norwegian border.

My focus was simply those parts that were preventing apps, such as hiking.WayMarkedTrails.org, from fulfilling their brief. So my use of the most recent resource is limited. As such I do not think it appropriate to include as part of the route header. Doing so may give a wrong impression. You, of course, are quite welcome to make that addition, or not, as you choose.

In carrying out my self appointed task I did not compare the route as now shown in OSM from one end to the other with the (official?) source I used to resolve presenting issues.

Accordingly I don't feel competent to make further adjustments, such as deciding where the route (officially) starts.

Having said that, as a visitor (even to other sites in my own country) I find it incredibly helpful for any route to start near a major arrival point.

In this case I would welcome a start at a train station where services from Stockholm arrive.

Kia ora

PS:
I included website www.stolavsleden.com when making these various adjustments last month.

Kia ora

http://www.stolavsleden.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Hike_Map_juni2019.pdf

This seems to be a Swedish production.

There were a number of alternatives which I resolved, in the interests of one contiguous route for - in particular - hiking.WayMarkedTrails.com, using this recent version.

I understand St Olavsleden, starting in eastern Sweden is different from St Olav's Way starting in Oslo, although they both finish in Trondheim.

Kia kaha

Thanks. Wasn't aware there was a talk-nz forum

@ralley, kia ora and thank you for that comment.

I was hoping for comment on how to tag a 'marae'

In that name pretty much unique to Aotearoa - New Zealand.

The closest, in some general respects is a 'village green' with buildings. But village the concept of a village green is not known here and its use would be seen a foreign.

Whereas 'marae' is well defined in A-NZ.

What you saw earlier was a closed line.
I played with using a tag of 'amenity'. But that seemed to lead down unwanted rabbit holes.

Then tagging 'building=wharenui'.

Since your comment I have found the 'disused' building is a wharekai (dining and kitchen space).

On my return home a short while I have deleted the closed line in favour of an area for the same space.

Hoping you can comment on what, for me, is how to tag the landuse of the area.

Or does OSM need an addition of 'marae'?

There are several thousand of these throughout the country.

Kia kaha

Sometging for you to consider.

I notice the route through Lazio covers the whole of that Province/Region.

And I notice on one of the Via Francigena websites that the whole route is now split into a north and south section with the break in Rome. Presumably, at S Peter's.

I might be useful to reflect that decision in OSM.

Doing so would have a mechanical advantage of breaking a 1,400 element route into two more manageable sections.

My apologies that I am unable to reply in your own language.

yet again, kind regards, Alan

Dine, thanks again

You will have seen my response to your first comment.

To say again I worked with what was there.

I am away from home for a week and worked on a mobile device. This is not good for seeing "the big picture".

again, kinds regards, Alan

Dino, thank you.

Last year I walked Canterbury and stopped about 1 week from the Swiss border.

I am booked to return to there early April 2020.

A tool I rely on is WayMarkedTrails.com. If a route is continous it will gived the mapped length and an elevation profile.

All the sections in Italy were very fragemented and including variants added to that complexity.

You are right I do not yet know the route.

What I did was to follow the existing assigments of each road, path, steps etc.

I did not knowingly alter any route.

I made one mistake and corrceted that about 24 hours ago.

Please correct away.

But please also leave contiguous routes.

I use RelationAnalyzer.com to find small gaps (a short bridge of 10 metre element that has not been included) and JOSM to sequence things.

Please let me know when you have done.

kind regards, Alan

Thank you for your comments. My understanding is the same as you two re bridleways.
The routing software was OSM's normal web browser. This would not allow me to use this segment.
I will re-tag as "foot=designated" and "motor_vehicle=no", this being my understanding of what you are telling me.

Tried that and was partially successful.
The "Vehicle=no" still stands despite my persuasion.
And Foot and Bicycle are now designated.

Jon, again thanks for your observations.
This area was particularly difficult to modify with the web editor not permitting me to separate existing elements.
The biggest changes, to my mind, were to the crossing of the eastern slip side of Chobham Road. My examination was that there were no differences in the pedestrian crossing at that point.
To help me understand the issue you raise please detail the issues point by point showing what is correct and how each element should be marked.
Looking forward to working with you to resolve this matter.
Best wishes, Alan

Jon, thank you for your comments.
I am responding to each of your comments in turn.
In Q2 2020 I intend to walk from the train station in Basingstoke to Twickenham. My hope is to include this canal, the Wey Navigation and Thames Path.
I also use WayMarkedTrails.org as my online tool. Using that tool, I looked at the elevation profile and noted a heavily fractured route (rather like that of the nearby Blackwater Valley Path).
When looking at the elements in the web based editor I could see so many addition and omissions for the Basingstoke Canal that contributed to that fractured state. In particular there were several locations at which the Hiking Route was mapped on both sides of the Canal. And several places where the route was doubled at intersections with bridges, including being mapped on road elements leading away from the canal.
What is there now is a continuous route from the just west of Up Nately to the Wey Navigation. I have not added to those ends. In my view there is now a working base to make further tidy ups.
My questions / challenge to you, Jon include:
Why was the mapped route in such a parlous state before my preliminary work?
Why are three small unconnected sections mapped east of Basingstoke and west of Up Nately?
I am more than content for you to put finishing touches to this canal route.
If there are places where a walking route has alternatives in some places these are best mapped as an alternative route (with code, say, BCalt in this instance. But please bear in mind that a hiking route is a contiguous set of elements, just like a bus route.
Jon, I look forward to working with you to get a satisfactory outcome for all.
Best wishes, Alan
PS: now to consider your next comment.

"By their interests you will know them" with apologies to Saint Matthew.

I walked this rute in November 2017 when the workd were were well underway but not then complete.

I deliberately did not (knowingly) change anything to do with NCR 7. You will need to discuss with the promoters of that cycle route as to what their preferences are.

I think you my have made the point that the international usage of path, coupled with the "cycle layer" in the iD editor for those wanting to see cycleways, is a better way to do things

With kind regards, Alan

@DaveF, re sidewalk again.
The Wiki (at osm.wiki/Sidewalks and the section Terminology discusses why this is the preferred tag for space identified in some way as part of a road but not for motor vehicles.
It is my understanding that have right of way (unless specifically removed, eg motorways, under legislation) on paths and roads.
That being the case it follows that those on foot on a sidewalk have priority over other designated users (eg cyclists) on the same sidewalk.
The designation comes from the local authority (not a ramblers, harriers or cycling group) and is shown on official road side signage, or painted on the sidewalk.

It is my clear understanding the shared use signage does not set aside the common law right of way (and primacy) for those on foot.

Kind regards

@DaveF, thanks for the probably better forum link. I think this is the one from which I looked at the July to date archive a few days ago.
I would want to read my way in before making any talking-points.

regards, Alan
regards

@DaveF, re sidewalk.
My response is both yes and no.
In a sandbox (using the browser editor) I drew a line.
The prompts for me to map the nature of the line included "Sidewalk"
Selecting that put in two tags.
So, yes, one can select "Sidewalk" up front and, yes, the editor does the work behind the scenes.
In a practical sense I have selected "highway=...sidewalk".

kind regards, Alan