Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[jul gijbels]

Hey everyone,


a lot of the cycling highways are listed :

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Cycle_Routes#Vlaanderen


including the mapt relation and a status


jul2


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Jo]

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020, 23:07 Pieter Vander Vennet 
wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> After some silence in this thread, I would like to close it with a small
> wrap-up.
>
> As the consensus is clear, I've created a wiki page describing the tag in
> detail
> .
> Feel free to update, add or correct on this page. Additionally, I've added
> links and updated tagging on a few wiki pages where I encountered the old
> tagging.
>
>
> Secondly, I would wish to thank Polyglot for his extensive work on the
> mapping of these cycle networks and to already execute the changes
> described here!
>

I may have made a mistake though. I only saw it when I reread the thread;
BE: is missing.

> Thirdly, I would like to thank everyone involved for all the ideas and the
> constructive way everything was discussed!
>
> Kind regards & best wishes for 2020,
> Pietervdvn
>
>
>
> On 26.12.19 11:16, EeBie wrote:
>
> I am checking  some cycling highways with status proposed and keep the
> parts that are released as usable (Befietsbaar) in the relation and delete
> the status proposed to make them visible and usable in routeplanners.
> I experienced that the information on the website Fietssnelwegen.be is not
> 100% correct. There are parts released where no bike access is allowed. I
> leave these parts out and also the parts over unpaved paths that are
> difficult for usual bikes.
>
> Eebie
>
> Op 25/12/19 om 13:14 schreef joost schouppe:
>
> Hi Jo,
>
> I think that's the right thing to do, thank you.
>
> What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is unfinished, but
> large sections of them are, then I would think the finished parts do
> deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about this briefly before, maybe
> someone here has an idea how to split up the route (say F3) in three types
> of subrelations :
>
> - usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
> - usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
> - unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)
>
> As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't
> belong in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked. For
> example, in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official detour
> that will be in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind of situation
> needs to ge in a fourth type...
>
> Joost
>
> Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo :
>
>> All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed the
>> remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not possible to
>> use them today to get from the start till the end, they are marked as
>> state=proposed.
>>
>> Jo
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey everyone,

After some silence in this thread, I would like to close it with a small
wrap-up.

As the consensus is clear, I've created a wiki page describing the tag
in detail
.
Feel free to update, add or correct on this page. Additionally, I've
added links and updated tagging on a few wiki pages where I encountered
the old tagging.


Secondly, I would wish to thank Polyglot for his extensive work on the
mapping of these cycle networks and to already execute the changes
described here!

Thirdly, I would like to thank everyone involved for all the ideas and
the constructive way everything was discussed!

Kind regards & best wishes for 2020,
Pietervdvn



On 26.12.19 11:16, EeBie wrote:
> I am checking  some cycling highways with status proposed and keep the
> parts that are released as usable (Befietsbaar) in the relation and
> delete the status proposed to make them visible and usable in
> routeplanners.
> I experienced that the information on the website Fietssnelwegen.be is
> not 100% correct. There are parts released where no bike access is
> allowed. I leave these parts out and also the parts over unpaved paths
> that are difficult for usual bikes.
>
> Eebie
>
> Op 25/12/19 om 13:14 schreef joost schouppe:
>> Hi Jo,
>>
>> I think that's the right thing to do, thank you. 
>>
>> What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is
>> unfinished, but large sections of them are, then I would think the
>> finished parts do deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about
>> this briefly before, maybe someone here has an idea how to split up
>> the route (say F3) in three types of subrelations :
>>
>> - usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
>> - usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
>> - unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)
>>
>> As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't
>> belong in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked.
>> For example, in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official
>> detour that will be in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind
>> of situation needs to ge in a fourth type...
>>
>> Joost
>>
>> Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo > >:
>>
>> All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed
>> the remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not
>> possible to use them today to get from the start till the end,
>> they are marked as state=proposed.
>>
>> Jo
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

On 26.12.19 11:16, EeBie wrote:
> I am checking  some cycling highways with status proposed and keep the
> parts that are released as usable (Befietsbaar) in the relation and
> delete the status proposed to make them visible and usable in
> routeplanners.
> I experienced that the information on the website Fietssnelwegen.be is
> not 100% correct. There are parts released where no bike access is
> allowed. I leave these parts out and also the parts over unpaved paths
> that are difficult for usual bikes.
>
> Eebie
>
> Op 25/12/19 om 13:14 schreef joost schouppe:
>> Hi Jo,
>>
>> I think that's the right thing to do, thank you. 
>>
>> What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is
>> unfinished, but large sections of them are, then I would think the
>> finished parts do deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about
>> this briefly before, maybe someone here has an idea how to split up
>> the route (say F3) in three types of subrelations :
>>
>> - usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
>> - usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
>> - unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)
>>
>> As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't
>> belong in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked.
>> For example, in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official
>> detour that will be in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind
>> of situation needs to ge in a fourth type...
>>
>> Joost
>>
>> Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo > >:
>>
>> All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed
>> the remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not
>> possible to use them today to get from the start till the end,
>> they are marked as state=proposed.
>>
>> Jo
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[EeBie]

I am checking  some cycling highways with status proposed and keep the 
parts that are released as usable (Befietsbaar) in the relation and 
delete the status proposed to make them visible and usable in 
routeplanners.
I experienced that the information on the website Fietssnelwegen.be is 
not 100% correct. There are parts released where no bike access is 
allowed. I leave these parts out and also the parts over unpaved paths 
that are difficult for usual bikes.


Eebie

Op 25/12/19 om 13:14 schreef joost schouppe:

Hi Jo,

I think that's the right thing to do, thank you.

What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is unfinished, 
but large sections of them are, then I would think the finished parts 
do deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about this briefly 
before, maybe someone here has an idea how to split up the route (say 
F3) in three types of subrelations :


- usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
- usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
- unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)

As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't 
belong in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked. 
For example, in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official 
detour that will be in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind 
of situation needs to ge in a fourth type...


Joost

Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo >:


All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed
the remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not
possible to use them today to get from the start till the end,
they are marked as state=proposed.

Jo
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[joost schouppe]

Hi Jo,

I think that's the right thing to do, thank you.

What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is unfinished, but
large sections of them are, then I would think the finished parts do
deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about this briefly before, maybe
someone here has an idea how to split up the route (say F3) in three types
of subrelations :

- usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
- usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
- unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)

As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't belong
in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked. For example,
in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official detour that will be
in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind of situation needs to ge
in a fourth type...

Joost

Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo :

> All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed the
> remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not possible to
> use them today to get from the start till the end, they are marked as
> state=proposed.
>
> Jo
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Jo]

All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed the
remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not possible to
use them today to get from the start till the end, they are marked as
state=proposed.

Jo
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Marc Gemis]

I would assume that something like cycle.travel will compute a
bicycle-friendly route for the missing parts if all streets are mapped
properly with max speed, cycleways, surfaces, etc. There is indeed no
need/justification to map personal preferences/suggestions.

If the routes calculated by dedicate cycle routers are not taking the
best route, why not discuss this with the developers and see whether
they can improve their algorithms or perhaps they can suggest you to
add additional info that has an impact on routes. I did that in the
past for my home-to-work itinerary.

regards

m.

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:50 AM Jo  wrote:
>
> Go ahead, they are not important to me. I was trying to create itineraries 
> that get you from one place to another today, instead of in 5 or 10 years.
>
> I like to see bicycle routes that are continuous. That is usually not 
> possible today on any of the fietsnelwegen.
>
> Jo
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 23:40 EeBie  wrote:
>>
>> I agree with the remarks of Stijn. Only the parts of the "Fietssnelwegen" 
>> that are realized and “Befietsbaar” on the website of Fietssnelwegen and/or 
>> marked in the field as such, should be on OSM as cycle route.
>> During the past 2 years I suffered several times from the unreliable 
>> information on OSM as a user of OSM based bike route planners. Planned cycle 
>> highways were put on the map as realized and existing. A bike routeplanner 
>> makes a route with preference to cycle routes that are on OSM. I supposed to 
>> follow a cycle highway but landed on a single track path of 30 cm wide with 
>> surface of soft sand that I had to walk. On another spot I was following a 
>> paved footway and had to squeeze my brakes at once because the paved footway 
>> went over in a stairs downwards where a bridge will be build in the future. 
>> Luckily it was in daylight and feasible; users of cycle highways are 
>> supposed to take these routes before and after work when it is dark.The 
>> proposed routes on OSM are dangerous.
>>
>> I have given that cycle highway relation the state proposed=yes that makes 
>> that they are not taken in account on bike routeplanners and on 
>> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org (those proposed relations are visible on 
>> the Bike Map layer on OSM cycle map layer ). There was a fixme or incomplete 
>> remark on those relations of planned cycle highways but those doesn’t make 
>> that they are neglected by routeplanners.
>>
>> I have put the proposed state on other cycle highways that were mapped as 
>> going through fences over private industrial premises and others where 
>> biking was not permitted or where even was no path at all.
>>
>> I have deleted parts of cycle highways in the route relation where bike 
>> riding wasn’t possible as for example on railway bridge where the bridge 
>> wasn’t ready a few months back (maybe it is meanwhile, but I wasn’t there 
>> recently).
>>
>> A few years back I have mapped parts of cycle highways that where ready and 
>> marked and put on the website as “Befietsbaar” in a route relation but I had 
>> to notice that parts that weren’t ready were added to those relations.
>>
>> I also don’t like the “alternative cycle highways” because they only exist 
>> in the head of one person and their quality is (in a lot of cases) very poor 
>> and dangerous. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17298358 If you 
>> take this path riding on modal electric bike style downwards from the 
>> embankment of the canal over a small unpaved path to a narrow bridge over a 
>> ditch, you are death. And that should be highway for bikes.
>>
>> I propose to delete all what is “alternatief Fietssnelweg” because they are 
>> non existing and they make OSM unreliable because those routes are put as 
>> preferred by routeplanners.
>>
>> For the F Fietswegen I propose to delete the parts that are not ready from 
>> the route relations and leave the parts that are ready and “Befietsbaar” as 
>> on the on Fietssnelwegen website (putting the “proposed” status to a 
>> complete F relation isn’t a solution any more because parts of them are 
>> released as “Befietsbaar”).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eebie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Op 23/12/19 om 21:10 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't understand why nobody else objects to the 'alternatives'. They're 
>> just somebody's personal inventions, but they do not exist. If we allow Jo's 
>> alternatives, then we have to allow anybody's alternatives, suggestions , 
>> etc. for cycle highways or any other kind of hiking, cycle, ... routes. E.g. 
>> the cycle highway between Diest and Hasselt has been deleted: can I add to 
>> OSM a good alternative that I use daily? I hope the aswer is no. I don't 
>> mind that somebody suggests on some website alternatives for the cycle 
>> highways which do not yet exist. It's even a very good idea, but please keep 
>> them out of the OSM database.
>> In my opinion, only those parts which are already waymarked should be in 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Jo]

Go ahead, they are not important to me. I was trying to create itineraries
that get you from one place to another today, instead of in 5 or 10 years.

I like to see bicycle routes that are continuous. That is usually not
possible today on any of the fietsnelwegen.

Jo

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 23:40 EeBie  wrote:

> I agree with the remarks of Stijn. Only the parts of the "Fietssnelwegen"
> that are realized and “Befietsbaar” on the website of Fietssnelwegen and/or
> marked in the field as such, should be on OSM as cycle route.
> During the past 2 years I suffered several times from the unreliable
> information on OSM as a user of OSM based bike route planners. Planned
> cycle highways were put on the map as realized and existing. A bike
> routeplanner makes a route with preference to cycle routes that are on OSM.
> I supposed to follow a cycle highway but landed on a single track path of
> 30 cm wide with surface of soft sand that I had to walk. On another spot I
> was following a paved footway and had to squeeze my brakes at once because
> the paved footway went over in a stairs downwards where a bridge will be
> build in the future. Luckily it was in daylight and feasible; users of
> cycle highways are supposed to take these routes before and after work when
> it is dark.The proposed routes on OSM are dangerous.
>
> I have given that cycle highway relation the state proposed=yes that makes
> that they are not taken in account on bike routeplanners and on
> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org (those proposed relations are visible
> on the Bike Map layer on OSM cycle map layer
> 
> ). There was a fixme or incomplete remark on those relations of planned
> cycle highways but those doesn’t make that they are neglected by
> routeplanners.
>
> I have put the proposed state on other cycle highways that were mapped as
> going through fences over private industrial premises and others where
> biking was not permitted or where even was no path at all.
>
> I have deleted parts of cycle highways in the route relation where bike
> riding wasn’t possible as for example on railway bridge
> 
> where the bridge wasn’t ready a few months back (maybe it is meanwhile, but
> I wasn’t there recently).
>
> A few years back I have mapped *parts* of cycle highways that where ready
> and marked and put on the website as “Befietsbaar” in a route relation but
> I had to notice that parts that weren’t ready were added to those relations.
>
> I also don’t like the “alternative cycle highways” because they only exist
> in the head of one person and their quality is (in a lot of cases) very
> poor and dangerous. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17298358
> If you take this path riding on modal electric bike style downwards from
> the embankment of the canal over a small unpaved path to a narrow bridge
> over a ditch, you are death. And that should be highway for bikes.
>
> I propose to *delete all what is “**alternatief Fietssnelweg” *because
> they are non existing and they make OSM unreliable because those routes are
> put as preferred by routeplanners.
>
> For the F Fietswegen I propose to *delete the parts that are not ready*
> from the route relations and leave the parts that are ready and
> “Befietsbaar” as on the on Fietssnelwegen website (putting the “proposed”
> status to a complete F relation isn’t a solution any more because parts of
> them are released as “Befietsbaar”).
>
> Regards,
>
> Eebie
>
>
>
>
> Op 23/12/19 om 21:10 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't understand why nobody else objects to the 'alternatives'. They're
> just somebody's personal inventions, but they do not exist. If we allow
> Jo's alternatives, then we have to allow anybody's alternatives,
> suggestions , etc. for cycle highways or any other kind of hiking, cycle,
> ... routes. E.g. the cycle highway between Diest and Hasselt has been
> deleted: can I add to OSM a good alternative that I use daily? I hope the
> aswer is no. I don't mind that somebody suggests on some website alternatives
> for the cycle highways which do not yet exist. It's even a very good idea,
> but please keep them out of the OSM database.
> In my opinion, only those parts which are already waymarked should be in
> OSM as cycle highways (and shown on e.g.
> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org). The fact that there is a road or a
> cycle path which might be turned into a cycle highway, doesn't mean that
> there is a cycle highway. So, all the rest: state=proposed. [As it is
> already difficult enough to keep OSM a bit up to date, adding things which
> might be realised in some distant future seems to me a bit of a waste of
> time. But that's just my opinion. Anyone is free to do so.]
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
>
> Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:23:51 CET schreef Jo 
> :
>
>
> Hi Pieter,
>
> You are right, that is an 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[EeBie]

I agree with the remarks of Stijn. Only the parts of the 
"Fietssnelwegen" that are realized and “Befietsbaar” on the website of 
Fietssnelwegen and/or marked in the field as such, should be on OSM as 
cycle route.
During the past 2 years I suffered several times from the unreliable 
information on OSM as a user of OSM based bike route planners. Planned 
cycle highways were put on the map as realized and existing. A bike 
routeplanner makes a route with preference to cycle routes that are on 
OSM. I supposed to follow a cycle highway but landed on a single track 
path of 30 cm wide with surface of soft sand that I had to walk. On 
another spot I was following a paved footway and had to squeeze my 
brakes at once because the paved footway went over in a stairs downwards 
where a bridge will be build in the future. Luckily it was in daylight 
and feasible; users of cycle highways are supposed to take these routes 
before and after work when it is dark.The proposed routes on OSM are 
dangerous.


I have given that cycle highway relation the state proposed=yes that 
makes that they are not taken in account on bike routeplanners and on 
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org 
 (those proposed relations are 
visible on the Bike Map layer on OSM cycle map layer 
 
). There was a fixme or incomplete remark on those relations of planned 
cycle highways but those doesn’t make that they are neglected by 
routeplanners.


I have put the proposed state on other cycle highways that were mapped 
as going through fences over private industrial premises and others 
where biking was not permitted or where even was no path at all.


I have deleted parts of cycle highways in the route relation where bike 
riding wasn’t possible as for example on railway bridge 
 
where the bridge wasn’t ready a few months back (maybe it is meanwhile, 
but I wasn’t there recently).


A few years back I have mapped _parts_ of cycle highways that where 
ready and marked and put on the website as “Befietsbaar” in a route 
relation but I had to notice that parts that weren’t ready were added to 
those relations.


I also don’t like the “alternative cycle highways” because they only 
exist in the head of one person and their quality is (in a lot of cases) 
very poor and dangerous. Example: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17298358 If you take this path riding 
on modal electric bike style downwards from the embankment of the canal 
over a small unpaved path to a narrow bridge over a ditch, you are 
death. And that should be highway for bikes.


I propose to *delete all what is “**alternatief Fietssnelweg” *because 
they are non existing and they make OSM unreliable because those routes 
are put as preferred by routeplanners.


For the F Fietswegen I propose to *delete the parts that are not ready* 
from the route relations and leave the parts that are ready and 
“Befietsbaar” as on the on Fietssnelwegen website (putting the 
“proposed” status to a complete F relation isn’t a solution any more 
because parts of them are released as “Befietsbaar”).


Regards,

Eebie




Op 23/12/19 om 21:10 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be:

Hi,

I don't understand why nobody else objects to the 'alternatives'. 
They're just somebody's personal inventions, but they do not exist. If 
we allow Jo's alternatives, then we have to allow anybody's 
alternatives, suggestions , etc. for cycle highways or any other kind 
of hiking, cycle, ... routes. E.g. the cycle highway between Diest and 
Hasselt has been deleted: can I add to OSM a good alternative that I 
use daily? I hope the aswer is no. I don't mind that somebody suggests 
on some website alternatives for the cycle highways which do not yet 
exist. It's even a very good idea, but please keep them out of the OSM 
database.
In my opinion, only those parts which are already waymarked should be 
in OSM as cycle highways (and shown on e.g. 
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org). The fact that there is a road or 
a cycle path which might be turned into a cycle highway, doesn't mean 
that there is a cycle highway. So, all the rest: state=proposed. [As 
it is already difficult enough to keep OSM a bit up to date, adding 
things which might be realised in some distant future seems to me a 
bit of a waste of time. But that's just my opinion. Anyone is free to 
do so.]


Regards,

StijnRR

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:23:51 CET schreef Jo :


Hi Pieter,

You are right, that is an odd way of tagging them. cycle_highway seems 
better indeed. I don't know who started doing it that way, I simply 
continued the practice, without giving it enough thought.


Most of these cycle highways can't be cycled from beginning to end, 
they continue over large distances (for bicycles). This means they are 
all tagged with state=proposed. Some of them are mostly 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be]

 Hi,
I don't understand why nobody else objects to the 'alternatives'. They're just 
somebody's personal inventions, but they do not exist. If we allow Jo's 
alternatives, then we have to allow anybody's alternatives, suggestions , etc. 
for cycle highways or any other kind of hiking, cycle, ... routes. E.g. the 
cycle highway between Diest and Hasselt has been deleted: can I add to OSM a 
good alternative that I use daily? I hope the aswer is no. I don't mind that 
somebody suggests on some website alternatives for the cycle highways which do 
not yet exist. It's even a very good idea, but please keep them out of the OSM 
database.In my opinion, only those parts which are already waymarked should be 
in OSM as cycle highways (and shown on e.g. 
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org). The fact that there is a road or a cycle 
path which might be turned into a cycle highway, doesn't mean that there is a 
cycle highway. So, all the rest: state=proposed. [As it is already difficult 
enough to keep OSM a bit up to date, adding things which might be realised in 
some distant future seems to me a bit of a waste of time. But that's just my 
opinion. Anyone is free to do so.]
Regards,
StijnRR

Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:23:51 CET schreef Jo :  
 
 Hi Pieter,
You are right, that is an odd way of tagging them. cycle_highway seems better 
indeed. I don't know who started doing it that way, I simply continued the 
practice, without giving it enough thought.
Most of these cycle highways can't be cycled from beginning to end, they 
continue over large distances (for bicycles). This means they are all tagged 
with state=proposed. Some of them are mostly done though, like F1 or F3, but 
the parts that are missing from them will take several years to complete. Do we 
want to keep them with state=proposed?
What I started doing is to also map alternatives that can be cycled from start 
to end today. I recently learned this is not really appreciated by some 
official instances. They don't control what we do, so it's not extremely 
important, but still maybe something to keep in mind.
One thing I was considering to do, is to divide them in subrelations. Such that 
the parts that are finished would go into both the 'official' relation and into 
the alternative one. If you would like, I'll do this for F3, to show what I 
mean.
Then there is also sometimes  a difference between what is shown on 
fietsnelwegen.be and what is actually visible in the field. I'm thinking about 
the situation in Veltem, where F3 has a leg on the southern side marked in the 
field, but it is actually meant to go through the center of Veltem, north of 
the railway it generally follows.
Most cycle highways are not yet visible in the field. The signs aren't  placed 
yet. For example F203 from Sterrebeek to Sint-Stevens-Woluwe. It passes through 
Kraainem over 2 cycleways of 50cm, with no separation to motorized traffic that 
is allowed to go at 70km/h there. Then it goes through the center with lots of 
crossings. This is a bit odd, as there is the possibility to pass through 
Molenstraat, wich is a lot safer and has a far better experience for the 
cyclist.
The alternative route relations I was creating, are meant to disappear after a 
few years, but that point, I might be tempted to keep it, even when the 
official instances decide to keep the less suitable itinerary.
One general problem with the cycle highways, today, is that it's next to 
impossible to apply 'ground truth'  to them, except if we would only map the 
parts that are actually already finished and marked in the field.
Those are my thoughts on the subject. If I find some more time, I might 
continue mapping the official ones, with the projected parts, like I did it 
here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history
But for longer stretches. I have no idea if they are planning to add those 
dedicated cycleways in the next 2 years, or in the next 15 years though.
For the ones that I audited over the past year, there are many pictures on 
Mapillary.
Polyglot
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Pieter Vander Vennet  
wrote:

Hello everyone,

As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner which takes
'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to have some uniform
tagging into place for this.

Some of them are already tagged with `cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`, which
sounds very Flemish.

I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing fietssnelwegen, but
would like to document them on the wiki and to have some more thought
put into them. First of all, the dutch term is something very
inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps "cycle_highway" is a better
fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with "BE:". Thirdly, OSM tags
are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is not.

Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially looking looking forward to
input from polyglot who is very familiar with them.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Nice! Good to hear that!

On 11.12.19 10:32, Lionel Giard wrote:
> To answer Joost question about relevance in other regions : yes it is
> relevant. Wallonia recently started to plan and implement these "cycle
> highway" to reach Brussels from multiple different locations (with
> protected cycleway along motorway, national road or railway). They
> want to connect and continue some of the existing cycle highway in
> Flanders (like the F20 near Halle and go further to Tubize...). 
> That would definitely be a belgian thing, and not only flanders. ^_^
>
> Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 à 10:12, Marc Gemis  > a écrit :
>
> > Tagging scheme
> >
> > I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as
> cycle_network normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?)
> of them are already tagged, we could simply update the tagging all
> at once.  I'll do that next week, unless a better proposal or good
> reason not to is raised.
>
> to be honest I find "network" strange in the context of a single
> cycle_highway. All cycle_highways together form a network, but a
> single one not.
> We do not map the E 19 motorway as car_network:BE:motorway, but we do
> have a relation for all parts of the E 19 in a route-relation (I
> think, OSM website was soo slow yesterday when I tried to access the
> page on E-motorways).
>
> Is this cycle_network value OK with the inventors of that tag ? Wasn't
> it invented recently to distinguish cycle networks from local cycle
> routes ?
>
> In conclusion: I would prefer another way to tag cycle highways
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey Marc,

For clarity, the idea is to create a relation which represents a cycle
highway, such as (for example) this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10139557
We will _not_ add extra tags on the individual way segments.

I had a quick look to the E40-motorway somewhere. On that, there is a
similar relation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/84338#map=7/50.434/5.673

Note that this similar relation has `network=e-road`-tag.

So, all in all, I do think that we are talking about exactly the same.

Mvg, Pieter

On 11.12.19 10:11, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> Tagging scheme
>>
>> I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network 
>> normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already 
>> tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that next 
>> week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.
> to be honest I find "network" strange in the context of a single
> cycle_highway. All cycle_highways together form a network, but a
> single one not.
> We do not map the E 19 motorway as car_network:BE:motorway, but we do
> have a relation for all parts of the E 19 in a route-relation (I
> think, OSM website was soo slow yesterday when I tried to access the
> page on E-motorways).
>
> Is this cycle_network value OK with the inventors of that tag ? Wasn't
> it invented recently to distinguish cycle networks from local cycle
> routes ?
>
> In conclusion: I would prefer another way to tag cycle highways
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Jo]

It is true that the cycle highways form some sort of a network. macro view
at least. When I was trying to map them in OSM, it was often tricky to find
a single spot that could be considered a node where they connect.

Around Gent, mapping F40 as a single continuous cycle highway is a
challenge. There is also quite often some overlap.

In Bilzen there is an actual gap on F76.

Jo

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:43 PM s8evq  wrote:

> Actually, after reading the wiki pages, `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`
> seems indeed the best choice here.
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:45:39 +0100 (CET), "s8evq" 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:35:51 +0100, Pieter Vander Vennet <
> pieterv...@posteo.net> wrote:
> >
> > > *Tagging scheme*
> > >
> > > I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network
> > > normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already
> > > tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that
> > > next week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.
> >
> >
> > Concerning the tagging, would perhaps the new tag "network:type" be of
> any help? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network:type It was
> invented for the use with value node_network, but could perhaps take other
> values?
> >
> > If we can be critical? What makes a "Fietssnelweg" different from
> another long distance route like LF5
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5285 Only the operator key?
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Jo]

Brussels too is planning to extend the Fxxx toward the center. Of course,
they'll use a C instead of an F, but as far as I understood, they are
planning to use the same numbers, so F3 becomes C3 at the border of the
Brussels region.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:33 AM Lionel Giard 
wrote:

> To answer Joost question about relevance in other regions : yes it is
> relevant. Wallonia recently started to plan and implement these "cycle
> highway" to reach Brussels from multiple different locations (with
> protected cycleway along motorway, national road or railway). They want to
> connect and continue some of the existing cycle highway in Flanders (like
> the F20 near Halle and go further to Tubize...).
> That would definitely be a belgian thing, and not only flanders. ^_^
>
> Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 à 10:12, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
>
>> > Tagging scheme
>> >
>> > I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network
>> normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already
>> tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that next
>> week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.
>>
>> to be honest I find "network" strange in the context of a single
>> cycle_highway. All cycle_highways together form a network, but a
>> single one not.
>> We do not map the E 19 motorway as car_network:BE:motorway, but we do
>> have a relation for all parts of the E 19 in a route-relation (I
>> think, OSM website was soo slow yesterday when I tried to access the
>> page on E-motorways).
>>
>> Is this cycle_network value OK with the inventors of that tag ? Wasn't
>> it invented recently to distinguish cycle networks from local cycle
>> routes ?
>>
>> In conclusion: I would prefer another way to tag cycle highways
>>
>> regards
>>
>> m
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Lionel Giard]

To answer Joost question about relevance in other regions : yes it is
relevant. Wallonia recently started to plan and implement these "cycle
highway" to reach Brussels from multiple different locations (with
protected cycleway along motorway, national road or railway). They want to
connect and continue some of the existing cycle highway in Flanders (like
the F20 near Halle and go further to Tubize...).
That would definitely be a belgian thing, and not only flanders. ^_^

Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 à 10:12, Marc Gemis  a écrit :

> > Tagging scheme
> >
> > I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network
> normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already
> tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that next
> week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.
>
> to be honest I find "network" strange in the context of a single
> cycle_highway. All cycle_highways together form a network, but a
> single one not.
> We do not map the E 19 motorway as car_network:BE:motorway, but we do
> have a relation for all parts of the E 19 in a route-relation (I
> think, OSM website was soo slow yesterday when I tried to access the
> page on E-motorways).
>
> Is this cycle_network value OK with the inventors of that tag ? Wasn't
> it invented recently to distinguish cycle networks from local cycle
> routes ?
>
> In conclusion: I would prefer another way to tag cycle highways
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Marc Gemis]

> Tagging scheme
>
> I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network 
> normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already 
> tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that next 
> week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.

to be honest I find "network" strange in the context of a single
cycle_highway. All cycle_highways together form a network, but a
single one not.
We do not map the E 19 motorway as car_network:BE:motorway, but we do
have a relation for all parts of the E 19 in a route-relation (I
think, OSM website was soo slow yesterday when I tried to access the
page on E-motorways).

Is this cycle_network value OK with the inventors of that tag ? Wasn't
it invented recently to distinguish cycle networks from local cycle
routes ?

In conclusion: I would prefer another way to tag cycle highways

regards

m

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[s8evq]

Actually, after reading the wiki pages, `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway` seems 
indeed the best choice here.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:45:39 +0100 (CET), "s8evq"  wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:35:51 +0100, Pieter Vander Vennet 
>  wrote:
> 
> > *Tagging scheme*
> > 
> > I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network
> > normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already
> > tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that
> > next week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.
> 
> 
> Concerning the tagging, would perhaps the new tag "network:type" be of any 
> help? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network:type It was invented 
> for the use with value node_network, but could perhaps take other values?
> 
> If we can be critical? What makes a "Fietssnelweg" different from another 
> long distance route like LF5 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5285 Only 
> the operator key?
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be



___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Jo]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 6:35 PM Pieter Vander Vennet 
wrote:

> Hello Jo,
>
> Thanks for the informative answer which offers a very informed view and
> for your many contributions.
>
> I'll break it up onto multiple subtitles, as there are some sub-topics
> emerging.
>
> *Tagging scheme*
>
> I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network
> normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already
> tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that next
> week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.
>

Sounds good to me

>
> *state=proposed and ground truth *
>
> This is a very good semantic question. Officially, we could only lift the
> state=proposed when all the signposts are present. Alternatively, we could
> have the relation only containing the parts that are already cyclable, and
> having another relation containing the unfinished parts, but I feel that
> this is a lot of work for little to no gain. If a segment has
> 'highway=proposed' on it, well, the meaning of that is quite clear. So,
> practically speaking, how it is done now is quite good.
>

highway=proposed, proposed=cycleway works well for ways that don't exist
yet. state=proposed somewhat less well.
One of my goals is to create route relations that don't have gaps in them.
To reach that in the official ones, we need those highway=proposed ways, no
problem there.

My other goal is to show cyclists what itinerary they can already use today
to bridge the missing parts to get from the start of the intended Fxx to
the end. In that relation I also want to have no gaps, hence the
duplication of ways for those parts that are already realised.

My solution would be to have many subrouterelations, but that would become
somewhat more complex.

> *Alternative routes*
>
> The alternatives pose a different problem. I think that the best solution
> would be to have a single extra relation for each alternative leg - but
> only containing the differing parts, which would avoid having cycleways
> which are part of both the official and alternative ways.
>
> For tagging, I find it however hard to add a
> `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway` to it. Maybe we could opt for
> `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway:unofficial` or
> `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway:alternative`? It should be noted however
> that these will never be verifiable on the ground and thus a bit against
> the OSM-spirit! Their disappearing nature thus is a bonus.
>
> Practically speaking, our routeplanner should be able to figure out a
> decent route over missing links.
>

I think in general, until most of them are signposted, they all (or most of
them) are hard to verify on the ground.

> *The website fietssnelwegen.be *
>
> First of all, the earlier link lacked one S. For the record, the correct,
> working website is https://fietssnelwegen.be/
>
> I've always considered that website as being informative for the public -
> and as how they were planned years ago with quite a bit of guesswork. It
> looks to me that they took a map and drew some approximate lines on them,
> open to change.
>
> In the Veltem case could be an example of that where the plans were
> amended. This view also answers the question on what to map: in my opinion,
> the signposted cycle network *is* the official network, even if this
> website happens says otherwise. Even more, it simply indicates that
> fietssnelwegen.be should be updated, not that OSM should copy incorrect
> data.
>
I had access to the official data, and I agree that fietssnelwegen is only
indicative, but as far as I understood, the official itinerary will pass
through the center of Veltem. So I have no idea why it is now signposted
south of the railroad in the field. I expect that this will change at some
point.

> About your alternative for F203 passing Kraainem via Molenstraat instead:
> maybe, because the signs aren't placed yet, we should try contact the
> official instances and try to change the F203 there? It clearly isn't to
> late for that and would make for a better, safer route. It seems to have
> happened that way in the Veltem case as well.
>
Yes, I hope they will come to their senses with that one. Lobbying is on
its way, but it won't hurt if we all write them a little email...

> At last: why aren't they just using an overpass-based map? It could show
> the status, surface, lit=yes/no for each segment and calculate all of that
> live!
>

No idea, but I don't think they actually make use of OSM data.

> *The master relation*
>
> At last, I've also created a master relation containing all the F*:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6682883
>
> All current cycle highways are included in that, but as I'm not familiar
> how master relations work, the tagging could probably be improved. Feel
> free to edit and/or let me know how this could be improved.
>
> With kind regards and looking forward to more input,
> Pieter
>

Great!

Jo

>

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[s8evq]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:35:51 +0100, Pieter Vander Vennet 
 wrote:

> *Tagging scheme*
> 
> I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network
> normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already
> tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that
> next week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.


Concerning the tagging, would perhaps the new tag "network:type" be of any 
help? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network:type It was invented for 
the use with value node_network, but could perhaps take other values?

If we can be critical? What makes a "Fietssnelweg" different from another long 
distance route like LF5 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5285 Only the 
operator key?

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hello Jo,

Thanks for the informative answer which offers a very informed view and
for your many contributions.

I'll break it up onto multiple subtitles, as there are some sub-topics
emerging.

*Tagging scheme*

I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network
normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already
tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that
next week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.

*state=proposed and ground truth
*

This is a very good semantic question. Officially, we could only lift
the state=proposed when all the signposts are present. Alternatively, we
could have the relation only containing the parts that are already
cyclable, and having another relation containing the unfinished parts,
but I feel that this is a lot of work for little to no gain. If a
segment has 'highway=proposed' on it, well, the meaning of that is quite
clear. So, practically speaking, how it is done now is quite good.

*Alternative routes*

The alternatives pose a different problem. I think that the best
solution would be to have a single extra relation for each alternative
leg - but only containing the differing parts, which would avoid having
cycleways which are part of both the official and alternative ways.

For tagging, I find it however hard to add a
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway` to it. Maybe we could opt for
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway:unofficial` or
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway:alternative`? It should be noted however
that these will never be verifiable on the ground and thus a bit against
the OSM-spirit! Their disappearing nature thus is a bonus.

Practically speaking, our routeplanner should be able to figure out a
decent route over missing links.

*The website fietssnelwegen.be*

First of all, the earlier link lacked one S. For the record, the
correct, working website is https://fietssnelwegen.be/

I've always considered that website as being informative for the public
- and as how they were planned years ago with quite a bit of guesswork.
It looks to me that they took a map and drew some approximate lines on
them, open to change.

In the Veltem case could be an example of that where the plans were
amended. This view also answers the question on what to map: in my
opinion, the signposted cycle network /is/ the official network, even if
this website happens says otherwise. Even more, it simply indicates that
fietssnelwegen.be should be updated, not that OSM should copy incorrect
data.

About your alternative for F203 passing Kraainem via Molenstraat
instead: maybe, because the signs aren't placed yet, we should try
contact the official instances and try to change the F203 there? It
clearly isn't to late for that and would make for a better, safer route.
It seems to have happened that way in the Veltem case as well.

At last: why aren't they just using an overpass-based map? It could show
the status, surface, lit=yes/no for each segment and calculate all of
that live!

*The master relation*

At last, I've also created a master relation containing all the F*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6682883

All current cycle highways are included in that, but as I'm not familiar
how master relations work, the tagging could probably be improved. Feel
free to edit and/or let me know how this could be improved.

With kind regards and looking forward to more input,
Pieter

On 10.12.19 16:23, Jo wrote:
> Hi Pieter,
>
> You are right, that is an odd way of tagging them. cycle_highway seems
> better indeed. I don't know who started doing it that way, I simply
> continued the practice, without giving it enough thought.
>
> Most of these cycle highways can't be cycled from beginning to end,
> they continue over large distances (for bicycles). This means they are
> all tagged with state=proposed. Some of them are mostly done though,
> like F1 or F3, but the parts that are missing from them will take
> several years to complete. Do we want to keep them with state=proposed?
>
> What I started doing is to also map alternatives that can be cycled
> from start to end today. I recently learned this is not really
> appreciated by some official instances. They don't control what we do,
> so it's not extremely important, but still maybe something to keep
> in mind.
>
> One thing I was considering to do, is to divide them in subrelations.
> Such that the parts that are finished would go into both the
> 'official' relation and into the alternative one. If you would like,
> I'll do this for F3, to show what I mean.
>
> Then there is also sometimes  a difference between what is shown on
> fietsnelwegen.be  and what is actually
> visible in the field. I'm thinking about the situation in Veltem,
> where F3 has a leg on the southern side marked in the field, but it is
> actually meant to go through the center of Veltem, north of the
> railway it generally follows.
>
> Most cycle highways are not yet 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Jo]

Hi Pieter,

You are right, that is an odd way of tagging them. cycle_highway seems
better indeed. I don't know who started doing it that way, I simply
continued the practice, without giving it enough thought.

Most of these cycle highways can't be cycled from beginning to end, they
continue over large distances (for bicycles). This means they are all
tagged with state=proposed. Some of them are mostly done though, like F1 or
F3, but the parts that are missing from them will take several years to
complete. Do we want to keep them with state=proposed?

What I started doing is to also map alternatives that can be cycled from
start to end today. I recently learned this is not really appreciated by
some official instances. They don't control what we do, so it's not
extremely important, but still maybe something to keep in mind.

One thing I was considering to do, is to divide them in subrelations. Such
that the parts that are finished would go into both the 'official' relation
and into the alternative one. If you would like, I'll do this for F3, to
show what I mean.

Then there is also sometimes  a difference between what is shown on
fietsnelwegen.be and what is actually visible in the field. I'm thinking
about the situation in Veltem, where F3 has a leg on the southern side
marked in the field, but it is actually meant to go through the center of
Veltem, north of the railway it generally follows.

Most cycle highways are not yet visible in the field. The signs aren't
placed yet. For example F203 from Sterrebeek to Sint-Stevens-Woluwe. It
passes through Kraainem over 2 cycleways of 50cm, with no separation to
motorized traffic that is allowed to go at 70km/h there. Then it goes
through the center with lots of crossings. This is a bit odd, as there is
the possibility to pass through Molenstraat, wich is a lot safer and has a
far better experience for the cyclist.

The alternative route relations I was creating, are meant to disappear
after a few years, but that point, I might be tempted to keep it, even when
the official instances decide to keep the less suitable itinerary.

One general problem with the cycle highways, today, is that it's next to
impossible to apply 'ground truth'  to them, except if we would only map
the parts that are actually already finished and marked in the field.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. If I find some more time, I might
continue mapping the official ones, with the projected parts, like I did it
here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history

But for longer stretches. I have no idea if they are planning to add those
dedicated cycleways in the next 2 years, or in the next 15 years though.

For the ones that I audited over the past year, there are many pictures on
Mapillary.

Polyglot

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Pieter Vander Vennet 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner which takes
> 'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to have some uniform
> tagging into place for this.
>
> Some of them are already tagged with `cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`, which
> sounds very Flemish.
>
> I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing fietssnelwegen, but
> would like to document them on the wiki and to have some more thought
> put into them. First of all, the dutch term is something very
> inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps "cycle_highway" is a better
> fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with "BE:". Thirdly, OSM tags
> are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is not.
>
> Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially looking looking forward to
> input from polyglot who is very familiar with them.
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hello everyone,

As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner which takes
'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to have some uniform
tagging into place for this.

Some of them are already tagged with `cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`, which
sounds very Flemish.

I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing fietssnelwegen, but
would like to document them on the wiki and to have some more thought
put into them. First of all, the dutch term is something very
inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps "cycle_highway" is a better
fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with "BE:". Thirdly, OSM tags
are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is not.

Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially looking looking forward to
input from polyglot who is very familiar with them.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be