[Tagging] cycle highways in Belgium (WAS: Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?)

[Seppe Santens]

Dear Volker,

Happy to see that you’re looking into the tagging scheme that we used in Belgium for mapping cycle highways. There’s a lot more information about this tagging scheme on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycle_network%3DBE-VLG:cycle_highway It’s probably best to suggest improvements over there (on the Discussion page), as this thread is already very long and it was originally on a slightly different topic.

Best regards,

Seppe



Van: Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>
Verzonden: maandag 29 november 2021 10:23
Aan: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Onderwerp: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

Hmmm.
This tagging has issues, apart from the fact that it proves that my assumption that bicycle routes in OSM are touristic, is not valid in Belgium. :-(
The tag bicycle:type=utility is used here not in line with the (relatively recent) wiki page Bicycle:type<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Abicycle%3Atype>
I don't like the use of network=NCN (nation-wide cycling network) together with cycle-network for the name of the network.
The key cycle_highway is a very recent new tag, and invites confusion with cyclestreet<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cyclestreet> an bicycle_road<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_road>
The ref F7 is repeated in the name.




[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 23:35, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com<mailto:pelderson at gmail.com>> wrote:
Our Belgian friends are mapping "Cycle highways" ("Fiets-snelwegen") which are being rolled out over the country (of course, they call it a network of cycle_highways). Signposting will still take some time to complete; they use lifecycle tags to make sure only waymarked sections show up and are routed. The routes are chains of ways in route relations, tagged as follows:

bicycle:type
utility
cycle_highway
yes
cycle_network
BE-VLG:cycle_highway
name
F7 Fietssnelweg Gent - De Pinte
network
ncn
operator
Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen;Provincie West-Vlaanderen
ref
F7
route
bicycle
type
route

The function/purpose is packed in the tag: cycle_highway=yes
It's used for emphasized rendering and adapted weight for routing.
They show up on waymarkedtrails, as national routes.

They have no plans to tag all officially destination-signposted ways as such, nor to create relations for that purpose.

Just a frontline story.

Single comment: the cycle_network=* tag is not adding much here!

Peter Elderson


Op zo 28 nov. 2021 om 22:29 schreef Sebastian Gürtler <sebastian.guertler at gmx.de<mailto:sebastian.guertler at gmx.de>>:

Am 28.11.21 um 21:28 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> I am not a fan of the word basic in key or value. It suggests that
> other routes are built on top of these routes, which in general is not
> the case.
I don't know the situation in whole Germany but in the regions I know I
would say in general it is really the case but there are some exceptions
(as far as I know outdated routes, I haven't seen newly designed routes
that don't follow the new scheme).
> Germany may have a business rule for cycling that all cycling routes
> use these basic routes, but in fact they don't. In my experience with
> this kind of rule, it never works out completely, and business rules
> change. If any country can do it, it's Germany, but even then it's a
> localised exception, it works only for cycling in the parts of Germany
> that implemented the integrated guideposts completely and removed
> other types of guideposts.

That's an important fact that the reality has different networks or at
least one quite well defined network and more or less independent
cycling routes in parallel.

So a complete generalized tagging wouldn't be able to reflect the actual
situation. Finally I think the most suitable solution for my intention
to map the emerging network may really be describing just that there is
a cycle network with special features, find a name which has a broad
consensus and put it as value for cycle_network=DE:xyz. As stated by
Steve, this could be combined with other network identifiers if
necessary in special cases. This could be discussed in the German forum,
and it wouldn't interfere with tagging in other regions.

Sebastian


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
***DISCLAIMER*** www.westtoer.be/disclaimer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211129/15a952d5/attachment-0001.htm>