<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
Ben Laenen wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid201110102203.04924.benlaenen@gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">On Monday 10 October 2011 21:19:56 Marc Gemis wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I use both openwandelkaart and Lonvia to check my edits. Recently, I
noticed that some walking networks are rendered differently in Lonvia. The
routes have a rectangle with 2 characters (ZD - Zuid-Dijleland and KH -
Kempische Heuvelrug). Furthermore some routes have a proper lavel (ZD
100-101) instead of just the ID of the object.
Rivierenland -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13&lat=51.09385&lon=4.40489&layers=FFBT0">http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13&lat=51.09385&lon=4.40489&layers=FFBT0</a>
(also click Routes in lower right corner)
vs
Zuid-Dijleland - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13&lat=50.7784&lon=4.60522">http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13&lat=50.7784&lon=4.60522</a>
Is this the new standard to tag regional walking networks ? Can this be
documented on the wiki ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That happens when you use the name=* tag for the network name on these routes.
As with cycle node networks, don't use the name=* tag on the routes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I believe the Wiki should be changed and in stead of the node tag, a
name or ref tag should be used.<br>
<br>
See also this discussion.:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-August/002213.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-August/002213.html</a><br>
<br>
At the end I asked for a feature request on the website of Open Street
Map and Potlatch, to have more info beside the meaningless relation id
numbers.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017">http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017</a><br>
As you can see this note tag is an abuse and will never be supported by
the website or Potlatch.<br>
<br>
I don't know or understand the rationale for the note tag either, but
find the name tag as proposed in the talk, much more convenient (as
also demonstrated by the2 lonvia links from the TS).<br>
The listings on the website will be more meaningful<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1641610">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1641610</a><br>
in opposite to Rivierenland<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1698153">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1698153</a><br>
Same goes when you want to add a street to an existing relation. In the
dropdown, you see only id numbers and so you can not see which is the
right relation to add to.<br>
When they are named it is much more obvious. <br>
<br>
<br>
And a second thing to change would be the addition of the endpoints in
the routes as described by the Wiki.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging#.28B.29_Route_tagging">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging#.28B.29_Route_tagging</a><br>
This has no function at all and it is not provided for bike and foot
routes to have node members.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members</a><br>
(nodes are only for PT routes as stop, ...)<br>
It is also superfluous, because the roads at start and end contains
these points already.<br>
<br>
For the network relation, which groups all routes , there you could
find some sense in it to have the nodes listed. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid201110102203.04924.benlaenen@gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Another question is regarding the name of those networks. Apparently, the
name of the brochure (see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.wandelroutes.org/wandelnetwerk.htm">http://www.wandelroutes.org/wandelnetwerk.htm</a> )
does not always match the name on the signposts.
E.g. Kempense Heuvelrug (brochure) is Antwerpse Kempen (signposts)
In het land van Stille Waters (brochure) is Scheldeland (signposts)
Which name is preferred ? Should we somehow mention both names ?
Or is e.g. Antwerpse Kempen a superset of the Kempense Heuvelrug ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Use the one on the signposts.</pre>
</blockquote>
In fact there are only few bike node networks in Belgium (Flanders
actually). They are as such listed on the signposts.<br>
<br>
>From most networks, these are publicised on more than 1 map, which
have then distinct titles.<br>
Eg Vlaams-Brabant has 2 networks Hageland and Groene Gordel.<br>
Hageland fits on 1 map, but Groene Gordel comes with 3 maps: Dijleland,
Brabantse Kouters and Pajottenland - Zennevallei.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.brabantsekouters.be/gemeenten/gemeenten.asp">http://www.brabantsekouters.be/gemeenten/gemeenten.asp</a><br>
These are also 3 regions.<br>
<br>
PolyGlot has tried to find a logic in this and tried to exclude double
numbering of nodes in one network.<br>
So he invented also non-existing networks as eg Dijlelandse Kouters.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1726882">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1726882</a><br>
This should be rectified.<br>
<br>
Altough the villages are well defined for belonging to their region eg
Dijleland, etc, it is not always evident for the nodes itself as some
are on the borders.<br>
The maps themselves are not helping either as they make no (or not
always) distinction between the different networks or even provinces.<br>
<br>
I would prefer to have 3 networks (Dijleland, Kouters and Pajottenland)
in stead of one large Groene Gordel.<br>
I think it will be too big with too many nodes and routes (some in
duplication) for being practical.<br>
(It may also hit the limit for maximun number of members)<br>
Also the people that live there, love their region and don't want to be
part of some politically defined artificiallity.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20111008_072">http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20111008_072</a><br>
<br>
In general, I would take the divisions as listed in WikiPedia<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietsnetwerk#Status_in_Belgi.C3.AB">http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietsnetwerk#Status_in_Belgi.C3.AB</a><br>
and put that as base in the OSM wiki<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Cycle_Routes#Cycle_Node_Networks">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Cycle_Routes#Cycle_Node_Networks</a><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Gerard.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid201110102203.04924.benlaenen@gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">
Greetings
Ben
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>