On Mon, Jan 6, 2020, 23:07 Pieter Vander Vennet <[email protected]> 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 > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycle_network%3Dcycle_highway>. > 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 <[email protected]>: > >> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing > [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing > [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > -- > 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
