[OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks

Tue Oct 11 00:46:35 UTC 2011

Ben Laenen wrote:

>On Monday 10 October 2011 21:19:56 Marc Gemis wrote:
>  
>
>>I use both openwandelkaart and Lonvia to check my edits. Recently, I
>>noticed that some walking networks are rendered differently in Lonvia. The
>>routes have a rectangle with 2 characters (ZD - Zuid-Dijleland and KH -
>>Kempische Heuvelrug). Furthermore some routes have a proper lavel (ZD
>>100-101) instead of just the ID of the object.
>>
>>Rivierenland -
>>http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13&lat=51.09385&lon=4.40489&layers=FFBT0
>> (also click Routes in lower right corner)
>>vs
>>Zuid-Dijleland - http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13&lat=50.7784&lon=4.60522
>>
>>Is this the new standard to tag regional walking networks ? Can this be
>>documented on the wiki ?
>>    
>>
>
>That happens when you use the name=* tag for the network name on these routes.
>
>As with cycle node networks, don't use the name=* tag on the routes.
>
>  
>
I believe the Wiki should be changed and in stead of the node tag, a  
name or ref tag should be used.

See also this discussion.:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-August/002213.html

At the end I asked for a feature request on the website of Open Street 
Map and Potlatch, to have more info beside the meaningless relation id 
numbers.
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017
As you can see this note tag is an abuse and will never be supported by 
the website or Potlatch.

I don't know or understand the rationale for the note tag either, but 
find the name tag as proposed in the talk, much more convenient (as also 
demonstrated by the2 lonvia links from the TS).
The listings on the website will be more meaningful
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1641610
in opposite to Rivierenland
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1698153
Same goes when you want to add a street to an existing relation. In the 
dropdown, you see only id numbers and so you can not see which is the 
right relation to add to.
When they are named it is much more obvious.

And a second thing to change would be the addition of the endpoints in 
the routes as described by the Wiki.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging#.28B.29_Route_tagging
This has no function at all and it is not provided for bike and foot 
routes to have node members.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members
(nodes are only for PT routes as stop, ...)
It is also superfluous, because the roads at start and end contains 
these points already.

For the network relation, which groups all routes , there you could find 
some sense in it to have the nodes listed.

>  
>
>>Another question is regarding the name of those networks. Apparently, the
>>name of the brochure  (see http://www.wandelroutes.org/wandelnetwerk.htm )
>>does not always match the name on the signposts.
>>
>>E.g. Kempense Heuvelrug (brochure) is Antwerpse Kempen (signposts)
>>In het land van Stille Waters (brochure) is Scheldeland (signposts)
>>
>>Which name is preferred ? Should we somehow mention both names ?
>>Or is e.g. Antwerpse Kempen a superset of the Kempense Heuvelrug ?
>>    
>>
>
>Use the one on the signposts.
>
In fact there are only few bike node networks in Belgium (Flanders 
actually). They are as such listed on the signposts.

 From most networks,  these are publicised on more than 1 map, which 
have then distinct titles.
Eg Vlaams-Brabant has 2 networks  Hageland and Groene Gordel.
Hageland fits on 1 map, but Groene Gordel comes with 3 maps: Dijleland, 
Brabantse Kouters and Pajottenland - Zennevallei.
http://www.brabantsekouters.be/gemeenten/gemeenten.asp
These are also 3 regions.

PolyGlot has tried to find a logic in this and tried to exclude double 
numbering of nodes in one network.
So he invented also non-existing networks as eg Dijlelandse Kouters.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1726882
This should be rectified.

Altough the villages are well defined for belonging to their region eg 
Dijleland, etc, it is not always evident for the nodes itself as some 
are on the borders.
The maps themselves are not helping either as they make no (or not 
always) distinction between the different networks or even provinces.

I would prefer to have 3 networks (Dijleland, Kouters and Pajottenland) 
in stead of one large Groene Gordel.
I think it will be too big with too many nodes and routes (some in 
duplication) for being practical.
(It may also hit the limit for maximun number of members)
Also the people that live there, love their region and don't want to be 
part of some politically defined artificiallity.
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20111008_072

In general,  I would take the divisions as listed in WikiPedia
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietsnetwerk#Status_in_Belgi.C3.AB
and put that as base in the OSM wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Cycle_Routes#Cycle_Node_Networks

Regards,
Gerard.

> 
>Greetings
>Ben
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-be mailing list
>Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20111011/5fb85eb1/attachment.htm>