<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hello Jo,</p>
<p>Thanks for the informative answer which offers a very informed
view and for your many contributions.<br>
<br>
I'll break it up onto multiple subtitles, as there are some
sub-topics emerging.</p>
<p><b>Tagging scheme</b></p>
<p>I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as
cycle_network normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?)
of them are already tagged, we could simply update the tagging all
at once. I'll do that next week, unless a better proposal or good
reason not to is raised.</p>
<p><b>state=proposed and ground truth<br>
</b></p>
<p>This is a very good semantic question. Officially, we could only
lift the state=proposed when all the signposts are present.
Alternatively, we could have the relation only containing the
parts that are already cyclable, and having another relation
containing the unfinished parts, but I feel that this is a lot of
work for little to no gain. If a segment has 'highway=proposed' on
it, well, the meaning of that is quite clear. So, practically
speaking, how it is done now is quite good.<br>
</p>
<p><b>Alternative routes</b></p>
<p>The alternatives pose a different problem. I think that the best
solution would be to have a single extra relation for each
alternative leg - but only containing the differing parts, which
would avoid having cycleways which are part of both the official
and alternative ways.</p>
<p>For tagging, I find it however hard to add a
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway` to it. Maybe we could opt for
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway:unofficial` or
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway:alternative`? It should be noted
however that these will never be verifiable on the ground and thus
a bit against the OSM-spirit! Their disappearing nature thus is a
bonus.</p>
<p>Practically speaking, our routeplanner should be able to figure
out a decent route over missing links.<br>
</p>
<b>The website fietssnelwegen.be</b>
<p>First of all, the earlier link lacked one S. For the record, the
correct, working website is <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fietssnelwegen.be/">https://fietssnelwegen.be/</a></p>
<p>I've always considered that website as being informative for the
public - and as how they were planned years ago with quite a bit
of guesswork. It looks to me that they took a map and drew some
approximate lines on them, open to change. <br>
</p>
<p>In the Veltem case could be an example of that where the plans
were amended. This view also answers the question on what to map:
in my opinion, the signposted cycle network <i>is</i> the
official network, even if this website happens says otherwise.
Even more, it simply indicates that fietssnelwegen.be should be
updated, not that OSM should copy incorrect data.</p>
<p>About your alternative for F203 passing Kraainem via Molenstraat
instead: maybe, because the signs aren't placed yet, we should try
contact the official instances and try to change the F203 there?
It clearly isn't to late for that and would make for a better,
safer route. It seems to have happened that way in the Veltem case
as well.<br>
</p>
<p>At last: why aren't they just using an overpass-based map? It
could show the status, surface, lit=yes/no for each segment and
calculate all of that live!</p>
<p><b>The master relation</b></p>
<p>At last, I've also created a master relation containing all the
F*: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6682883">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6682883</a></p>
<p>All current cycle highways are included in that, but as I'm not
familiar how master relations work, the tagging could probably be
improved. Feel free to edit and/or let me know how this could be
improved.</p>
<p>With kind regards and looking forward to more input,<br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10.12.19 16:23, Jo wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ6DwMBzuBZzS8i9S7_Z-1MgF6Byd7MCuMwEhn5yKfLdi_0SCQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Pieter,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then there is also sometimes a difference between what is
shown on <a href="http://fietsnelwegen.be"
moz-do-not-send="true">fietsnelwegen.be</a> 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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: <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the ones that I audited over the past year, there are
many pictures on Mapillary.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Polyglot</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:53
PM Pieter Vander Vennet <<a
href="mailto:pietervdvn@posteo.net" moz-do-not-send="true">pietervdvn@posteo.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello
everyone,<br>
<br>
As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner which takes<br>
'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to have some
uniform<br>
tagging into place for this.<br>
<br>
Some of them are already tagged with
`cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`, which<br>
sounds very Flemish.<br>
<br>
I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing
fietssnelwegen, but<br>
would like to document them on the wiki and to have some more
thought<br>
put into them. First of all, the dutch term is something very<br>
inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps "cycle_highway" is
a better<br>
fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with "BE:".
Thirdly, OSM tags<br>
are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is not.<br>
<br>
Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially looking looking
forward to<br>
input from polyglot who is very familiar with them.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Met vriendelijke groeten,<br>
Pieter Vander Vennet<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
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="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet</pre>
</body>
</html>