<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Stijn,</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for sharing this. Despite the many hours I spent
reading the doc, I never found this one... It definitely deserves
attention from mappers focused on this network.</p>
<p>After reading, and with the various experiences I got mapping
specifically that network, I would like to bring two elements to
the attention of other mappers sharing the same interests:</p>
<p>1. Both the <b>designation</b> and <b>vicinal_ref</b> tags are
definitely useful, I missed them a lot. Now I'll be able to refine
the many places where it is useful, for both communities (balnam
and OSM).</p>
<p>2. If sometime I spent half an hour deciding between
highway=track and highway=path, I also spent <u>hours</u> to
decide between a path and a footway... Here is THE point that I
would like to insist on, and that should probably be refined in
the draft:<br>
In the main description of the <b>highway</b> tag, for the <b>footway</b>
value, ONE word is really import: [...] "<b>mainly</b>/exclusively
for pedestrians"<br>
This "mainly" word allows to make a clean distinction according to
the real world. This distinction is definitely necessary, and it
would be a big issue if that "<b>mainly</b>" word disappears. The
various places in the doc bring the reader to conclude that a
footway must have a visible/clear restriction for pedestrians
only. This would force to use a "path" in more than 99% cases,
with the loss of an important information: Is that way usable for
a non-pedestrian, non-sportman, a normal user (bicycler)? Is a
biker welcome there?<br>
</p>
<p>If that second point is not clear, just think of a different
rendering, like OpenCycleMap... For cycling, paths would stay
visible, footways would disappear. This may imply a deviation of
>20km or a trip cancellation for bicyclers!<br>
Also, a bicycler may be anybody on his Sunday ride, or a confirmed
moutainbiker with good technical capabilities.<br>
Another example of dramatic consequences would be the result of
routing software, like brouter.de, which could not be reliable at
all!<br>
=> Accurate information is fully relevant/important.
(Rendering, as always, is secondary notion, that must not
influence the accuracy of the data itself.)<br>
</p>
<p>NOTE: Please, consider checking around the <b>trail_visibility</b>
tag too... It seems there are contradictions between this draft
and the main understanding/other descriptions! There are many
misuses of this one.<br>
</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
François<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/08/20 18:11, Stijn Rombauts via
Talk-be wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1374207174.928728.1597248675311@mail.yahoo.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi,
A side step from the discussion of the previous days.
This page exists [1], but it isn't listed under the conventions here [2]. If I'm not mistaken it once was, but has disappeared from that list after a while. Does somebody know why? Or did it just fall off...
Or is it because it still has a 'draft' status? Then it is maybe time to accept this proposal instead of leaving it for years as a draft.
Anyway, if that page were a bit more visible, perhaps more people would follow those (draft) conventions (and also use the correct tags, e.g. vicinal_ref instead of ref or name).
Regards,
StijnRR
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads</a>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium</a>
_______________________________________________
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>
</body>
</html>