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 <[email protected]> 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 > <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]> > <[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 > [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
