Tourer+ people have an account already, so the identity management is solved. Why not allowing them to give feedback that other tourer+ people can switch on or off. Why do 10 people have to block a road. It should be sufficient that a first driver identifies the roadblock. This can be shown (we are mostly online anyway) and the app can be configured to react or not.
Here is an advantage of using OSM, because this can be just layered on top. So it shouldn’t be a unsurmountable technical problem. At the same time, it is making tourer+ more attractive, as long as people can switch it on or off (e.g. as “community information”)
We have something like this planned already, right now you would have to enter this information into OSM and then it is shown to all users (and can be configured).
technically, I wouldn’t put it into OSM itself. W3C already in 2005 demonstrated how to do this as a separate annotation RDF-store on top of OSM (the SIMILE project, and using now the qlever engine). Which in turn creates an asset for kurviger. You can display the portion to be blocked already in the APP. That means you have a way to identify it. Make this identifier a URI and use RDF to annotate that. For offline use that can be cached.
But talking of OSM, we have seen lots of strange routings caused by OSM road data that is visually correct but semantically wrong. The kurviger web interface (not the app as that would be overkill) could enable the user selecting a fishy part of the routing and allow to identify those issues. And if you’re really community oriented, you could even integrate an open source OSM editing tool there. But that’s just one of my dreams
Yes, there are certainly different options we can look into.
If you see anything, please feel free to either fix it in the OSM data (or report this in OSM).
Actually, I’d love that as well, we could integrate ID, that said, it feels like overkill, because it is pretty easy to jump to OSM and fix it there without overloading Kurviger. The only big benefit I would see is to help with some stuff that is complicated to tag in OSM, to make it easier to tag. But yeah, I have the same dream, nothing we can implement in the next weeks I guess
OSM editing is still way too nerdy. If such an option is imaginable, it would make things MUCH easier, e.g. some specific SLM or some such. It is of no use to integrate the super complex existing tools. I agree, there you could go directly to OSM.
