[OSM-talk-be] Introduction

[Ben Laenen]

Karel Adams wrote:
> On 04/16/2011 10:33 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > It is still unclear to me which name I should use. I'm in favor of BW23,
> > since that is on the sign.
> 
> Het uiteindelijke antwoord moet van de bevoegde overheid komen, in dit
> geval het gemeentebestuur veronderstel ik. Eens navragen bij het
> kadaster? Of bij de wegendienst?

They won't have the answer. These roads and paths simply don't have a name... 
Also, the cadastre doesn't have anything to do with road names (the names you 
sometimes see on their plans is often also wrongly spelled). Street names are 
defined by the municipality, in the municipality counsels. The 
buurtweg/voetweg numbers go back to the Atlas der Buurtwegen made in the 
1800's.

The issue is a bit like road numbers: what would the name of the A1/E19 be for 
example?

In principle, these roads and paths wouldn't have a name=* tag at all. But 
since we like names, we have some freedom in this, and since all abbreviations 
should be written as full in the tags, this becomes name=Buurtweg 23


By the way, the fact that they don't have a name, made me introduce the 
vicinal_ref=* and vicinal_type=road/path tags. You can see those tags at work 
in Borsbeek where I tagged many road with them. But I didn't use the name tags 
for those paths and roads that don't have a real name.


> Verder vind ik deze hele conversatie een zoveelste discussie over het
> geslacht der engelen. Ieder diertje zijn pleziertje hoor, maar het is
> prachtig weer en half Belgie ligt te wachten om gemapt te worden.
> Mijn eigen prioriteiten liggen nu even elders.

It's pretty cloudy outside for now :-) Anyway, yes, lots of discussion, but 
you have to discuss it at one point, no? Otherwise the data would be unusable. 
If no discussion ever took place, we wouldn't even know what tags to use for 
the road classification...

Greetings
Ben


(ok, I now see I'm replying in English to Dutch, but I'm not gonna rewrite it 
now...)