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