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
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/> (those proposed relations are
visible on the Bike Map layer on OSM cycle map layer
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1244996#map=15/50.7919/5.4333&layers=C>
). 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
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242291877#map=17/51.07556/5.21979&layers=C>
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 <[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 <http://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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
