<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%" lang="en-US">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. <br>
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.<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span lang="en-US">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 <a href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/"
target="_blank">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org</a>
(those proposed relations are visible on the Bike Map layer on <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1244996#map=15/50.7919/5.4333&layers=C">OSM
cycle map layer</a> ). 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. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%" lang="en-US">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. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span lang="en-US">I
have deleted parts of cycle highways in the route relation where
bike riding wasn’t
possible as for example on <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242291877#map=17/51.07556/5.21979&layers=C">railway
bridge</a> where the bridge wasn’t ready a few months back
(maybe
it is meanwhile, but I wasn’t there recently). </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span lang="en-US">A
few years back I
have mapped <u>parts</u> 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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><span lang="en-US">
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:
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17298358">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17298358</a>
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. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%" lang="en-US">I
propose to <b>delete all what is “</b><b>alternatief
Fietssnelweg”
</b>because they are non existing and they make OSM unreliable
because those routes are put as preferred by routeplanners. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%" lang="en-US">For
the
F Fietswegen I propose to <b>delete the parts that are not ready</b>
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”). <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%" lang="en-US">Regards,</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%" lang="en-US">Eebie<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }</style><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Op 23/12/19 om 21:10 schreef Stijn
Rombauts via Talk-be:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1458200146.3021531.1577131838281@mail.yahoo.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="ydp47cef725yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Hi,</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">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 <span>on some website </span>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.</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">In my opinion, only those
parts which are already waymarked should be in OSM as cycle
highways (and shown on e.g. <a
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org</a>).
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.]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Regards,</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">StijnRR<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ydpddb31f87yahoo_quoted_7710210039"
class="ydpddb31f87yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div> Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:23:51 CET schreef Jo
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:winfixit@gmail.com"><winfixit@gmail.com></a>: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="ydpddb31f87yiv2023346313">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Hi Pieter,
<div><br clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</div>
<div>Then there is also sometimes a difference
between what is shown on <a shape="rect"
href="http://fietsnelwegen.be" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank" 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 clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</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 shape="rect"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history</a></div>
<div><br clear="none">
</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 clear="none">
</div>
<div>For the ones that I audited over the past year,
there are many pictures on Mapillary.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Polyglot</div>
</div>
<br clear="none">
<div class="ydpddb31f87yiv2023346313gmail_quote">
<div class="ydpddb31f87yiv2023346313yqt1818729160"
id="ydpddb31f87yiv2023346313yqtfd63831">
<div class="ydpddb31f87yiv2023346313gmail_attr"
dir="ltr">On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Pieter
Vander Vennet <<a shape="rect"
href="mailto:pietervdvn@posteo.net"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">pietervdvn@posteo.net</a>>
wrote:<br clear="none">
</div>
<blockquote
class="ydpddb31f87yiv2023346313gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;">Hello
everyone,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner
which takes<br clear="none">
'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to
have some uniform<br clear="none">
tagging into place for this.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Some of them are already tagged with
`cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`, which<br
clear="none">
sounds very Flemish.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing
fietssnelwegen, but<br clear="none">
would like to document them on the wiki and to
have some more thought<br clear="none">
put into them. First of all, the dutch term is
something very<br clear="none">
inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps
"cycle_highway" is a better<br clear="none">
fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with
"BE:". Thirdly, OSM tags<br clear="none">
are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is
not.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially
looking looking forward to<br clear="none">
input from polyglot who is very familiar with
them.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
-- <br clear="none">
Met vriendelijke groeten,<br clear="none">
Pieter Vander Vennet<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
_______________________________________________<br
clear="none">
Talk-be mailing list<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br
clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br
clear="none">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="ydpddb31f87yqt1818729160"
id="ydpddb31f87yqtfd35458">_______________________________________________<br
clear="none">
Talk-be mailing list<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br
clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br
clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<br>
</body>
</html>