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

[Ben Laenen]

Patrick Weemeeuw wrote:
> 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%2FConvent
>ions%2FTraffic_Signs&diff=306436&oldid=301752

I've been busy myself making this page to try to come up with some good and 
unambiguous tagging rules (not finished by far): 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths

I don't know yet what to do exactly with the F99a/b/c signs, but few notes on 
what Patrick changed on the traffic signs page:

* is segregated "no" by default? It's quite important to tell, since D9 allows 
access to mopeds class A, while D10 doesn't. I wouldn't mind seeing the 
segregated tag added to the cycleway with foot=yes in all cases. Default value 
of "no" would be best I guess.

* F99a/b/c then: I'm personally not a big fan of using the traffic_sign tag 
for this (although I did use it since there was no other way, but it can 
become a problem if we have to map other traffic signs as well). We may need 
to look into the designation=* tag which would bridge the gap for special ways 
for which there's no international tag available like highway=living_street, 
or motorroad=yes), but we have to find short tags for them which people can 
remember, since the official names would be quite long 
(designation=road_reserved_for_agricultural_vehicles_pedestrians_cyclists_and_horse_drivers 
...). So for F99c is could be perhaps designation=agricultural, but no idea 
for F99a/b (F99a and F99b can be the same, F99b just needs an extra 
segregated=yes tag then).

* F99c shouldn't need the agricultural=yes tag, if it doesn't have a tractor 
symbol, it's a F99a sign.

Greetings,
Ben