[OSM-talk-be] OSM Forêt de Soig nes / Zoniënwoud

[Alain Empain]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:52:26 +0200, Ben Laenen wrote
> Pierre Parmentier wrote:
> > I would like to join my efforts to complete the map of the Forêt de Soignes
> > / Zoniënwoud.

Welcome !

I follow your discussions about tagging paths to help me to build my
knowledge. Thanks for the informations. 
 
The consistency of the decisions between encoders seems very important to me,
well above the freedom to use any variants. At least within a particular realm
(Belgium for ex).
 
Ideally, for the most common cases, it should be nice to have a sort of binary
decision tree (like those used by biologists to find the name of a plant/animal) :

0: is cars allowed 
  no, goto 1
  yes, goto 100

1: ...

2: ...
 
;-)

Best regards,

Alain


> >
> > Is there a "Belgian" standard for the various highway tags applicable for
> > wooden areas, forests, etc.?
> >
> > I see "track", "pedestrian", "footway", "cycleway" and the rendering shows
> > different symbols for the same type of highway!
> 
> The problem is that there are many definitions to be found on 
> different places and each allow a mapper to make his own 
> interpretations. So this obviously results in a plethora of 
> different tags for essentially the same path. And that in its turns 
> makes it impossible to know what exactly is allowed on some paths.
> 
> I'm trying to think of rules so that deciding how to tag everything 
> is just a matter of simple rules and no interpretation, so everyone 
> would tag the same. Current results here: 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths -- 
> but I'm pretty sure it's not entirely free of controversy. Using 
> highway=cycleway only for paths signed with traffic signs D7/D9/D10 
> would exclude a lot of paths which are currently signed as cycleway 
> for example.
> 
> Also, I've currently done a bit of work only for those public roads 
> that have traffic signs. For domains like parks or nature reserves 
> restrictions are usually signed differently. It could be with signs 
> like these http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl- 
> BE/Thema/Toegankelijkheid/Overzicht_toegankelijkheidsborden.aspx in 
> nature reserves in Flanders. In some parks there's just a 
> information sign at the entrances where it says in words that e.g. 
> only cyclists and pedestrians are allowed inside). And I'm 
> personally not entirely sure yet what would be the best way to tag 
> all that, in order to not conflict with the tags as used for the 
> paths with real traffic signs, as to not have a situation where the 
> same tags could mean two different things with different access rules.
> 
> I have no idea how everything is signed in the Zoniënwoud, but I 
> guess it's part of the last group with special signs...
> 
> (note that some of the things I'll say here below  may just reflect 
> my opinion and others may disagree)
> 
> > May I suggest for this particular case:
> >
> >    1. stick to the following keys:
> >    1. *"*unclassified" + "surface" values ("asphalt" or "concrete" or
> >       "cobblestone"
> 
> Unclassified only to be used for roads that are accessible for 
> "normal people", meaning that it's a public road and you could just 
> take a car to drive there (some restrictions may apply like 
> access=destination). So if a road is only accessible for service 
> vehicles, it becomes a path (because just like emergency vehicles, 
> service vehicles can just go everywhere, even if it's a path signed 
> as cycleway with D7). A road inside a domain where visitors can 
> drive their car (e.g. to get to a parking or a caravan site on the 
> domain) get the highway=service tag.
> 
> >       2. "tracktype" + "grade 1" or "grade 2" values ("3" or "4" values in
> >       some cases, most tracks have a high grade for forestry engines!)
> 
> tracktype only to be used with highway=track. Use "grade 1" with 
> care, tracks are only for unpaved roads (some Germans disagree on 
> that). Same notes from unclassified above: service vehicles don't 
> count as normal traffic, so if those are the only traffic allowed 
> there (other than cyclists or horse drivers), it's a path.
> 
> >       3. "path" + "restrictions" values (*bicycle=no* or *horse=no*)**
> 
> path by default allows: foot, bicycle, horse, moped (= moped_A + 
> moped_B)
> 
> >       4. "bridleway" (a few specific cases)
> 
> Use with care, and only if the path is *only* accessible by horses 
> and no other vehicles. If cyclists can go there, no more bridleway. 
> I'd prefer to only see bridleway being used together with traffic 
> sign D13 (just like cycleway would only be used for certain traffic 
> signs), and given that those domains usually don't have those signs, 
> it'd be path + access rules.
> 
> >       5. "cycleway" (a few specific cases)
> 
> see above. I doubt there are many paths there signed with D7/D9/D10 
> (it's possible though) so they become path if they're anything else.
> 
> >       2. remove "pedestrian" tags as it is more appropriate in urban areas
> 
> indeed
> 
> >    3. suppress "cycleway" when "highway" key is activated
> 
> I guess you mean removing the cycleway=track tags? The indeed don't 
> mean anything together with higwhay=cycleway. It was just Potlatch 
> that used to add that tag when choosing the cycleway preset.
> 
> >    4. suppress "footway" and replace it by "path"
> 
> That would probably be closer to reality as well.
> 
> Greetings
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


Dr Alain EMPAIN, Bioinformatics, Bryology
  National Botanic Garden of Belgium            alain.empain at br.fgov.be
  University of Liège, GIGA +1, Alma-in-silico  alain.empain at ulg.ac.be 
  Rue des Martyrs, 11 B-4550 Nandrin
Mobile: +32 497 701764  HOME:+32 85 512341   ULG: +32 4 3664157