<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thank you Steven, finally something in the good direction!</p>
<p>Fixing the issue is clearly the thing to do and much better than
adding a new mess on top of the existing one, which would
necessarily make any real fix impossible.</p>
<p>But... (yes) If one has the energy to start this process, here
are a few hints he should keep in mind at any time:<br>
</p>
<p>1. It's important to really understand the problem before trying
to fix it. And here, it looks like few people understand
where+what it is. See tag vs attribute here below.<br>
</p>
<p>2. Rules are important for community projects, especially wide
ones. OSM is a huge and specific one. But beyond respecting rules,
there is something at least as much important: the respect of
hierarchy/structure. One should understand the distinction between
the national OSM branch and the global/top level.<br>
If every national branch fixes a global issue at its level, first,
things are quickly going to be incompatible between countries,
second, it makes it much more complicated, if not impossible, to
correct later on at the top/global level.<br>
Fixing things globally is necessary to make the project survive on
the long term, for the same reasons.<br>
</p>
<p>3. Here after, I will use the term *walker_way* in place of
"footway", because the term itself is misleading and readers stick
with the human meaning, thus they miss the technical aspect which
has first priority. If you see clear in the tag vs attribute,
key/value, DB id, etc. You'll see these are just aliases.<br>
Those familiar with XML/HTML know that tags and attributes are not
the same, even if sometime a problem may be addressed locally with
either. Similarly, people used to OOP (Object Oriented
Programming) know the difference between an object and its
characteristics (members/attributes). That's the same with
keys/values in the context of OSM: the different values for
highway point to different entities/categories. There is NO reason
to suddenly treat one category via attributes while all others are
treated appropriately. This is not for rendering, this is for sane
data into the database.<br>
Are *walker_way* a useful category? - Yes, even if it looks like
no at first glance. (Story: I also was puzzled when facing this
questioning myself, the first time. I changed and changed again
according to my understanding of the wiki... To, finally, lately,
understand the meaning and reasons it exists.)<br>
=> This category exists, it is useful, even if it applies only
to a fraction of cases. The mistake/error/problem is neither that
this category exist, nor even its misleading name, but the
documentation around. Specifically the fact the explanations,
definitions, usages, recommendations are spread in multiples
locations, sometime with a look of contradictions.<br>
NOTE: See the wood of Marche-les-Dames. There are tracks that
switch to paths. That switch is not easy to locate, they move
between seasons, they are particularly subjective, because of the
width/aspect/personal interpretation/consideration. However, not
far from there, there are *walker_ways* that are definitely
something different than a path or a track, and for which the
definitions and rules of signaling (roadsigns) do not apply, being
for bikes, horses or anything else. But they are clearly "<u><b>mainly
for walkers</b></u>", as stated in the wiki pages.<br>
I went across the documentation again and again, to end with the
conclusion that, NO, the current structure is NOT bad, there is no
error there, it was the right structure and *walker_ways* fully
apply, are useful. No signaling or width or the likes (attributes)
can replace that category, without breaking the good structure.<br>
</p>
<p>4. The real issue is the documentation, the lack of respect of
the hierarchy (global vs national) because of an initial slightly
messy wiki. And now, the documentation drifts further,
never-ending drafts take more and more precedence on official
decisions/consensus/rules (good or bad), to the point people do
not respect the global ruling that is mandatory to maintain the
project on the long term. We are soon going to face multiple
national OSM in place of a worldwide map.<br>
Worse, that approach kills any possibility to maintain the project
for future generations of mappers/maintainers, because it won't be
reversed. Spaghetti code... you know.<br>
</p>
<p>5. To write it again with other words, the issue is not the term
"footway". The issue is that it is interpreted with a human
meaning while it is an ID in a database... Just there to identify
a specific category. The category is useful, the structure is
good, please don't change this. Rename, via an alias or so, and
fix the documentation, at the global level, where stands the root
cause.<br>
When the global level will get fixed, and only then, a national
addition/supplement/improvement could be considered. But you will
notice that it is no more necessary, the problem would be fixed
for all countries at once.<br>
=> National rules should just be supplements/additions based on
the global ruling. Only for country-specific subtleties. Not
respecting this kills the maintainability/lifetime expectation of
the project.<br>
</p>
<p>6. If the conclusion ends with a change of the keyword "footway",
in order to stop new mappers to reproduce the same mistakes, then
an alias has much more chances to be accepted at the global level,
since its implementation is quite immediate while any other kind
of change would be very difficult, hence probably rejected. If not
rejected, the process would anyway take at least 2 years, probably
more. With an alias, a "solution" could be implemented in just a
few weeks, in a quite transparent way.<br>
If such an alias is chosen, then consider a keyword that makes
clear it is a technical ID, not a human-meaning word from the
dictionary. Look at the *walker_way* keyword that I invented here
above... Look at what the underscore brings... That looks like a
"technical" keyword. Not a dictionary word to be interpreted
differently in a subjective way, just an ID.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I hope it will help you to recover things and bring back the
project in a good, long term direction.</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
François<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/02/21 15:54, Steven Clays wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+XiLsa7uJLu8cgOpucHk=r=i7pdOSfnzcz2JXxHpQEGykoUqQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>In the UK one cannot ride a bicycle on a public footpath.
Very often, it is physically impossible.</div>
<div>I think we are making each other angry for almost no
reasons. We wight even consider refining the rules, but I
agree with François that he follows official rules. The
disputed paths only concern a very minimum of the whole lot.
So, François, your time spent is not to be considered as
wasted!<br>
</div>
<div>I used to tag everything with footway, nowadays I only use
it for exclusive pedestrian use. Slow roads in Belgium can be
used (even when they are not referenced!) for all types of
users that can use the width of the path and that are not
excluded by roadsigns. So, technically, a footway does not
apply. </div>
<div>We might even consider to put the slowroads Belgium page to
a vote or how does this process work?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op ma 22 feb. 2021 om 13:55
schreef Marc Gemis <<a href="mailto:marc.gemis@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">marc.gemis@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Originally, the highway-tags comes from the UK.
So highway=footpath really means a small road designated for
pedestrians. They are signposted like that. I'm not really
sure, but I think that this classification does not mean
that you cannot ride on it with a bicycle.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The Germans and others didn't like this, as they do not
know roads that are footpaths, so they introduced
highway=path.</div>
<div>And then things became very messy. And then the
standard renderer started showing things in the same way.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think many people say highway=footway and
highway=path, foot=designated (bicycle =no) are
synonymous. Surface, nor location play a role.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some people as HW=footway has to be paved, and in a
town, etc., but this all was added later and is afaik not
accepted all over the world. Sidewalks are not paved in
all countries, hence it is not a good idea to require
that.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think there is no general consensus, not in Belgium,
not in the rest of the world on whether once should use
path or footway. For me, HW= footway is just a shortcut
for HW=path + foot=designated,bicycle=no. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>m.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at
9:34 AM Francois Gerin <<a
href="mailto:francois.gerin@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">francois.gerin@gmail.com</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">
<div>
<p>I'm sorry, it's really nice that each one interprets
things like he wants, but official rules are there to
avoid issues, especially in subtle cases (like current
case, as already mentioned) and to avoid individual <u><b>interpretations</b></u>.</p>
<p>In the meantime, I saw a lot of inconsistencies in
the previous exchanges, while you definitely did not
take into account the elements I shared, which are
based and, AGAIN, have been confronted to the official
rules.</p>
<p>Read again the <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Paths"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">main
definitions</a>, they are CLEAR. Especially the
usage of a path and recommandations.</p>
<p>You don't like the use of footways, that's really
sad, but I RESPECT THE RULES. A path is NOT to use in
the cases I mentioned, like confirmed by the usage
rules that are OFFICIAL, link here above.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Contradictions (non-exhaustive list):</p>
<p> - You claim it's cheating on rules for rendering
purpose. But you recognize the rendering is not
different between a path and a footway.</p>
<p> - You rely on a never-ending draft, while official
rules have precedence and are CLEAR. The draft itself,
which has not come to an official rule change for
years and introduce some confusions (this one, among
others), which you make use of to torn things in the
way you would like things to be. But rules are rules
and are there for good reasons. When you tell "must be
understood as", "interpret like" or the likes, you are
directly demonstrating the lack of understanding of
why rules exist.<br>
</p>
<p> - You claim a path must be used, while the official
definition of a path, and the recommended usage
CLEARLY tells it's a footway.</p>
<p> - You make distinction between roads (secondary vs
residential, motorway vs secondary) and track vs path,
but you cannot make a distinction between a path and a
footway, which is clearly a bigger/clearer gap, much
clearer than track vs path, which are often difficult
to distinct for on site.</p>
<p> - You "don't see why", so it does not exist. Go to
sites on see! Rules are there for good reasons. NOTE:
When someone insist on the fact something is subtle
and complex, rejecting without even considering the
case/reason is error prone.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Particularly sad to see how OSM is turning against
itself, like often with community projects. After
having <strike>spent</strike> wasted hundreds of
hours to clean the mess it was in many parts, in
RESPECT OF THE RULES even when I didn't like them, I
come to the conclusion it was just a wast of time.
=> My contributions to OSM stops here.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 20/02/21 18:24, ghia wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div
id="gmail-m_1381381260972860548gmail-m_-8023702644185891826editbody1">
<div
style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
<p>I agree!</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div
id="gmail-m_1381381260972860548gmail-m_-8023702644185891826signature"> </div>
<p>There seems at first sight no raison to
differentiate the paths and to map some as
footway, and others as path. I think they should
all be mapped as path.</p>
<p>If there are some with bicycles allowed, this
can be tagged by bicycle yes or no.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Gerard</p>
<div
id="gmail-m_1381381260972860548gmail-m_-8023702644185891826v1signature"> </div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p
id="gmail-m_1381381260972860548gmail-m_-8023702644185891826v1reply-intro">On
2021-02-19 15:06, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="padding:0px
0.4em;border-left:2px solid
rgb(16,16,255);margin:0px">
<div
id="gmail-m_1381381260972860548gmail-m_-8023702644185891826v1replybody1">
<div>
<div> </div>
First, I would certainly not break a good
work - even if I disagree - like you did
here for example: <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.4822/4.9482"
rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.4822/4.9482</a>. That's
clearly a work done with precision and
evidently the tags are used consistently.
<div> </div>
<div>That said, I'm currently checking /
correcting all the uses of the footway tag
outside urbanised areas in the Haute-Meuse
region (from Givet to Namur) and in 99,99%
of cases, at least from the consistency
point of view, it was an error of the
mapper, mostly influenced by politics
(mapper that wants to emphasis the
pedestrian character of a vicinal path) or
simply by mistake or ignorance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Actually I don't really care about the
use of the footway tag like you did IF and
only IF it is consistent all over OSM and
that there is a consensus about that use.
As far as I can see your way of doing
things is an isolated case.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I really believe that there is a
misunderstanding in the definition of the
<u>word</u> itself. Have a look at that
query of google <a
href="https://www.google.com/search?q=footway&client=safari&hl=fr&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl4pmUgfbuAhVMwKQKHXTgDnQQ_AUoAnoECAgQBA&biw=1280&bih=642"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Images</a> on
the word footway. Even if those footways
can be unpaved (clay for example), all of
the pictures refers to <u>urbanised places</u>.
The word footway refers to "trottoirs" or
"voetpad" much more than "sentier" or
"pad".</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, with all due respect to your
work, I believe that you're wrong 😊 It
might be considered as mapping for the
renderer since default OSM maps don't
really make the difference between a
"normal" path and a path tagged as narrow
or difficult. But even if your approach
could make sense, the use of that footway
tag is wrong for me. Other renderers are
perfectly using the trail_difficulty and
trail_visibility tags that are made for
such use.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the screen capure of <a
href="https://opentopomap.org/#map=16/50.31757/4.82489"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">opentopomap</a> below,
the green arrow shows a "normal" path,
where the red one shows a difficult path I
mapped recently. It works !</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again and finally : for the immense
majority of the people, a "footway" is a <u>safe
place to walk</u>. Definitively not an
alpine path.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Matthieu</div>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote style="padding:0px
0.4em;border-left:2px solid
rgb(16,16,255);margin:0px">
<div>On 18 Feb 2021, at 13:32,
Francois Gerin <<a
href="mailto:francois.gerin@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">francois.gerin@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>I faced the same question a
while ago. I also realized the
lack of consensus, but also the
good reason for the lack of
consensus: the problem is not
that simple, and there are
different points of view,
sometime very opposite, but also
with a good common base.</p>
<p>First, for years I didn't
changed the map when already
mapped. And I mapped "like the
area around" to be consistent.
But then I became more active
and started to refresh and map
not-yet-covered areas in my
region. Mainly woods and forest,
where less mappers work and
because there was a clear need.<br>
=> Quickly I realized that it
was really important to map
"appropriately" in such areas.
And, just for the confirmation,
I encountered several times
people lost, sometime with
babies and bikes in quite
dangerous areas. (That happened
many times in the forest of
Marche-les-Dames, that a full
refreshed recently.)</p>
<p>I ended with this "simple"
approach, which is also the best
"consensus" (for myself) from
the different definitions,
remarks, wiki pages, and
compatible with forest use:</p>
<p>- Everything is mostly a path,
except if it is a track or a
footway.</p>
<p>- A track is where a 4-wheels
vehicle, more specifically a
forestry tractor, can (if traces
on the ground) or is used to
pass. (Distinction made so that
a path does not become a track
just because a quad can pass!)</p>
<p>- A footway is definitely
useful: this is a path too small
for horses and mountain bikes.
(By mountain bikers, I mean
"standard people", aka end
users, not pro mountain bikers
who can pass nearly everywhere a
pedestrian passes!) That
definitely correspond to what
bikers call "singles": a very
small track, where two bikes
cannot pass side by side.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>When I reached that approach, I
read again the different points
of view, remarks, wiki, to
conclude that it was respecting
quite well most of the points
considered important. And, for
me, it also satisfied the need
to make that distinction, which
is important on site. (cf. lost
people, dangerous situations)</p>
<p>Note that even if I'm a biker,
I force myself to consider OSM
for the "end user". With the
distinction I make for a
"standard end user": Consider
the map like a family getting
out for a walk on the Sunday...
Neither for a pro mountain
biker, nor a horse driver. Even
if those categories probably
benefit the most from the
distinction.</p>
<p>My 2 cents.</p>
<p>++<br>
François</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 18/02/21 12:49, Pieter
Vander Vennet wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="padding:0px
0.4em;border-left:2px solid
rgb(16,16,255);margin:0px">
<p>Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
Sorry to send a second email
just after my first, but while
doing some more research, I
found that this controversy is
already pretty old; see:</p>
<p><a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy</a><br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Pieter</p>
<div>On 18.02.21 12:34, Pieter
Vander Vennet wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="padding:0px
0.4em;border-left:2px solid
rgb(16,16,255);margin:0px">
<p>Hi Matthieu,</p>
<p>Welcome in the swampy
fields of tagging
discussions ;)<br>
<br>
<strong>My view</strong></p>
<p>First of all, we do
professional routeplanning,
for both cyclists and
pedestrians. And yes, I do
(mostly) agree with your
view: a path is a small,
unpaved (desire) path, e.g.
through a forest whereas a
footway is IMHO a typical
paved (or planned) road of
at least 0.5m wide. A rule
of thumb that I use is that
a wheelchair/stroller could
pass easily, or as Gerard
said earlier: "it is like a
sidewalk, but just not next
to a road"</p>
<p>If the "footway" is
sufficiently wide that a car
<em>could</em> drive over it
(but is not allowed to), I'm
inclined to mark them as <em>highway=pedestrian</em>.
This is useful information,
as e.g. emergency services
might take it during an
intervention to get close to
the location of the
accident.</p>
<p>I'm also inclined to mark a
wide, planned way (e.g. in
parks) as footways too.<br>
<br>
I try to base my road
classification mostly on
physical aspects: a path
stays a path, even if it
suddenly has a name board.
This is because of my view
from routeplanning: in
general, I assume that that
a footway is accessible to a
wheelchair user, whereas a
path is not. To explicitly
add the vicinal road status,
there are some tags for that
(vicinal_road:ref IIRC?).
This is the only place where
I disagree with you:</p>
<div>> The only exception I
see is a path in the country
side that is explicitly
marked (road signs) as
pedestrian only, and/or has
turnstiles or other gates to
keep other users away.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would still mark those
as a `highway=path`, with an
additional `bicycle=no` and
map the turnstiles/kissing
gates explicitly. The data
consumer can then decide
what to do.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Note however that not
everyone agrees with my
vision and that I'm not
always consistent too - I
mapped a <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107877794"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">very
peculiar case</a>
yesterday that by my
objective criteria should be
a 'path', but that I mapped
as footways due to their
context as that felt more
appropriate - but<a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/126568080"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
that place</a> has given
me more tagging questions
too...<br>
<br>
At last, some people say
that "a footway needs a
traffic sign to be a
footway" or "a cycle path
needs a traffic sign to be a
cyclepath". That is a view I
vehemently reject - not
every qualitive footway has
a traffic sign nor has every
traffic sign a qualitative
footway - although a traffic
sign can help in making
these decisions.<br>
<br>
Also abusing `highway=path`
for shared infrastructure
cycle/pedestrian
infrastructure is something
I loathe: it erases a lot of
information and is an
effective downgrade of the
relevant ways from a
routeplanning perspective,
as we have to assume the way
is a desire path (small,
unpaved); not accessible to
e.g. wheelchairs, strollers
and rollerskate, instead of
the very accessible nicely
paved, wide footway. To be
able to replicate all the
information for this
downgrade, we would need
`surface=*`, `width=*`,
`smoothness=*` and maybe
even `wheelchair=*` to be
sure it is a highly
qualitative footway and
quite a bit of tricky and
inexact preprocessing.
However, I do not have a
perfect solution for the
shared footways/cycleways as
well - but marking as path
is definitively worse.<br>
So, Marc_marc: I'm sorry,
but I do not agree with you
and some of the wiki
definitions! But that is
fine - a disagreement is
often due to a different
perspective or some missing
information. And OSM won't
fail over a bit of
disagreement ;)</div>
<p> <br>
<strong>Some history</strong></p>
<p>Apart from my vision, it is
also important to know that
OpenStreetMap started in the
UK, where there are plenty
of vicinal roads. I think
those where historically
mapped as highway=footway
too, but I'm not sure of
that. Furthermore, as Gerard
nicely stated earlier, it is
a common translation error.</p>
<p>Furhtermore, the iD editor
used to "upgrade" tags: a
`highway=footway +
bicycle=yes` and
`highway=cycleway +
foot=yes` got upgraded to
`highway=path; bicycle=yes;
foot=yes`. As the iD editor
is widely used, there are
quite some footways
downgraded now...</p>
<p>Kind regards,<br>
Pieter</p>
<div>On 18.02.21 10:27,
Matthieu Gaillet wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="padding:0px
0.4em;border-left:2px solid
rgb(16,16,255);margin:0px">Hi,
<div> </div>
<div>I would like to know if
there is some kind of
consensus in Belgium
regarding the use of
<footway> and
<path> tags.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My intuitive
interpretation in the
following : </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>a footway, generally
speaking, is anything
that is specifically
created for
pedestrians in
urbanised areas.</li>
<li>a path, is generally
speaking anything that
is not a track (thus
not for 4 wheeled
vehicles) and not (as
well) paved like a
footway.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>I know there are other
much more loose
interpretations that say
that a footway might be a
non-paved path, but my
question is : why would
one tag them differently
than others ? After all, a
path is not suitable for
anything else than
pedestrian use (except
sometimes bikes) ? On the
contrary, footways in
urbanised places *are*
special and it makes sense
to map them differently.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I observe that some
mappers are using the
footway tags for paths in
forests or fields in the
middle of nowhere. Those
are often "sentiers
communaux" (public paths)
mapped by balnam
affiliates. Its driving
me nuts 😊 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>- most of the time this
difference in the way
those paths are mapped
doesn't reflect any
physical nor practical
reality on the field. </div>
<div>- this creates
vagueness and looseness, I
see "normal" paths
suddenly showed as
"special" on maps without
any clear reason. </div>
<div>- some could argument
that the path tag is not
detailed enough. That's
not true : it can be (and
is) combined with a lot of
other tags to qualify it
from multiple point of
views and renderers are
already taking care of
them. This is *not* the
case of the footway which
is (logically) kind of
monolithic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only exception I
see is a path in the
country side that is
explicitly marked (road
signs) as pedestrian only,
and/or has turnstiles or
other gates to keep other
users away.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do you generally agree
with my way of seeing
things ? Is it at least
the general way of doing
things in Belgium ? Thanks
for sharing your thoughts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Matthieu</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet</pre>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div
style="margin:0px;padding:0px;font-family:monospace">_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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>
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>
</body>
</html>