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 <[email protected]>:
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 <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
