Yes exactly that (I think!). Maybe we need to establish an understanding of how terms are being used, both for clarity between us - in development - and eventually for users? For me a route feels like a complete journey - via a single or connected paths - that’s being suggested by someone for the leisure purposes of others. I wouldn’t expect a route to leave me stranded somewhere without advance knowledge of that!
Whereas - just thinking aloud here - paths are just what they say they are (although they can have any amount of other attached data and layers like PRoW status etc, and also any amount of attached data). They might not, right now, be recommended as a route, or connect up in any good way to make a route etc. But we need to be able to map/record/audit them to understand their issues, with a view to improving them and prioritising works etc and ultimately creating more great routes!
My personal interests are split between the two, but, and because it feels SO missing from debates, it’s the potential for the tools to collaborate on the second of these - paths - that gets me particularly fired up!
How do you think about /define them?
An Anonymous User
•
Jun 9
Meant to reply to @Daniel Raven-Ellison here - and as @Rowena Macaulay, not ‘anonymous’!
Rowena Macaulay
•
May 19
I’d like to be able to build a map of routes (hopefully increasingly connected routes) that are available/accessible to me, and therefore others like me. I may not, over time, retain this all in my head. Especially when there will be SO MANY of them!!
Daniel Raven-Ellison
•
Jun 2
Would you also like to be able to map accessible paths rather than just routes?
Comments4
An Anonymous User
Jun 9
Yes exactly that (I think!). Maybe we need to establish an understanding of how terms are being used, both for clarity between us - in development - and eventually for users? For me a route feels like a complete journey - via a single or connected paths - that’s being suggested by someone for the leisure purposes of others. I wouldn’t expect a route to leave me stranded somewhere without advance knowledge of that!
Whereas - just thinking aloud here - paths are just what they say they are (although they can have any amount of other attached data and layers like PRoW status etc, and also any amount of attached data). They might not, right now, be recommended as a route, or connect up in any good way to make a route etc. But we need to be able to map/record/audit them to understand their issues, with a view to improving them and prioritising works etc and ultimately creating more great routes!
My personal interests are split between the two, but, and because it feels SO missing from debates, it’s the potential for the tools to collaborate on the second of these - paths - that gets me particularly fired up!
How do you think about /define them?
An Anonymous User
Jun 9
Meant to reply to @Daniel Raven-Ellison here - and as @Rowena Macaulay, not ‘anonymous’!
Rowena Macaulay
May 19
I’d like to be able to build a map of routes (hopefully increasingly connected routes) that are available/accessible to me, and therefore others like me. I may not, over time, retain this all in my head. Especially when there will be SO MANY of them!!
Daniel Raven-Ellison
Jun 2
Would you also like to be able to map accessible paths rather than just routes?