[OSM-talk-be] Conventions for Old Railway Lines / Towpaths

[Patrick Weemeeuw]

FYI: I updated the 'WikiProject Belgium/Conventions/Traffic Signs' page 
according to this. Signs affected are D7, D9, D10, D11, D13, F99a, 
F99b, F99c
Diff: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium%2FConventions%2FTraffic_Signs&diff=306436&oldid=301752

-- patrick

On Wednesday 24 June 2009 19:29:03 Ben Laenen wrote:
> Kenny Moens wrote:
> > Hello guys,
> >
> > When looking at the maps in the Antwerp area, there are some
> > differences in the way the old railway lines/towpaths are mapped.
> > All these routes are typically restricted for bicycles and
> > pedestrians (sometimes horses, sometimes motorized with permit).
> > On the other hand, they are sometimes mapped with
> > "highway=cycleway", while others are mapped with "highway=track"
> > with the necessary restrictions to not allow other traffic.
>
> After mapping a lot of different paths with all possible kind of
> traffic signs I've developed a tagging method which is no longer
> using subjective terms like ("suited for bicycles", "used by a lot
> of cyclists", etc).
>
> I'm currently only mapping highway=cycleway when the path is really
> a cycleway, which means that it either is marked on the ground with
> long broken lines, or with a traffic sign D7 or D9, because
> otherwise it's not a cycleway. 90% of cycleways are thus found next
> to a road, but sometimes you see them on some other paths as well
> (usually because the ones in charge of traffic signs placement
> don't know about signs like F99a, or the signs were put there
> before those F99* signs were added to our traffic code)
>
> All other paths aren't a cycleway, so they become highway=path if
> there are no cars, motorcycles or agricultural vehicles allowed (or
> when they aren't physically able to drive there) (btw, I normally
> discard the fact that sometimes there are paths where certain
> people with a license are allowed to drive there in a car
> ("uitgezonderd vergunninghouders" along the Albertkanaal for
> example), so that stays a path and doesn't become
> highway=unclassified)
>
> That only the paths which are really a cycleway are tagged
> highway=cycleway here may be different from past tagging methods --
> I used to tag something cycleway from the moment bicycles were
> allowed. I also conveniently disregarded other vehicle types in
> that process... Because a moped is allowed on cycleways, and when
> one tags a paths with C3 ("no vehicles allowed") with the extra
> sign "except bicycles" as cycleway, a route planner would think
> mopeds are allowed on it as well. So that was obviously not the
> right way to tag, and when the highway=path tag was added it opened
> the door to finally tag things correctly.
>
>
> Anyway, my main highway tag usage goes as follows:
>
> * cars, motorcycles or agricultural vehicles allowed (and able to
> drive there)?
> ** road surface is concrete, asphalt or cobblestones →
> highway=unclassified ** otherwise → highway=track
> (I know some Germans sneaked highway=track to be used for some
> paved roads as well into the wiki, but I don't like track for paved
> roads :-) )
>
> * no cars etc. allowed:
> ** sign D7/D9/D10: → highway=cycleway (with D9 and D10: add
> foot=yes, D9: add segregated=yes, D10: segragated=no)
> ** sign D11: → highway=footway
> ** sign D13 (still need to see that sign somewhere in real life) →
> highway=bridleway
> ** all else: highway=path
>
> and then add the tags for each traffic sign.
>
> The F99a/b/c are a problem though, since they're actually a special
> kind of road, like a "woonerf", "autoweg" or "autosnelweg", and
> just like those they have a list of implicit traffic rules.
> Choosing between the highway tags isn't difficult: F99c becomes
> "residential", "unclassified" or "track", and F99a and F99b become
> "path". (I've seen an F99c which was a meter wide though, so "path"
> is possible with F99c as well apparently, although it would allow
> some motorized traffic like mopeds if it can drive there -- and
> when he's allowed to drive there of course as there are other
> conditions for that as well). Currently I add a tag like
> "traffic_sign=F99a" (so it can be detected later when a good
> tagging method appears) and for each icon on the sign I add
> "foot=yes", "bicycle=yes", "horse=yes" (F99c implies
> "agricultural=yes"). There's currently a proposal about a
> designation tag
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation)
> which could solve this.
>
> Second unsolved problem: paths like those in some nature reserves,
> parks or other public domains. They usually don't make use of
> traffic signs, but do it with their own set of signs. So access
> tags can be a problem there I think, but usually it's highway=path
> though.
>
>
> Anyway, this is my idea about how to tag things, and it seems to
> work quite well with the paths I've mapped, removes ambiguity, both
> in knowing afterwards what's allowed or not, and the tags are also
> no longer subjective to the person mapping it, so everyone would
> tag the same.
>
> Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be