[OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks

[Jo]

2011/10/11 Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com>

> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 02:46:35 Gerard Vanderveken wrote:
> > I believe the Wiki should be changed and in stead of the node tag, a
> > name or ref tag should be used.
>
> We've talked about this issue so often now, and we keep having the same
> problem with the name or ref tags: it's not those routes' names or
> reference
> numbers. It's the network which has a name, not the routes themselves.
>
> And what the Lonvia map shows is actually a result of using the name tag
> inappropriately.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, in my eyes using the name tag would be "abuse".
>
> And we use the note tag just because it's the best tag available without
> having to get support for some other tags, and luckily it's shown in JOSM
> as
> well. Do you have better proposals?
>

I suppose the ref tag might be more appropriate. It is indeed a bit odd to
use note for it, OTOH that's the only tag that was used consistently in all
the 1000s of relations I've seen so far...
Me removing the names on those route relations made the problem that
Potlatch does not and will not display them more accute though. When ref is
used, is it shown in Potlatch?

If we reach a decision to change note into something else, no manual labour
will be involved to change them wholesale. My script can take care of that,
both for hiking and cycling routes. Consensus between contributors in
Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany needs to be reached though.

> [...]
> >
> > 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_N
> > ode_Networks
>
>
> The problem is: can we get those divisions without actually looking at the
> maps the publish?
>

That's what I did, in fact. I don't have the maps published by the tourism
offices of the provinces. I do have a file obtained from Fietsnet with a
network for each node, but I used that only as guidance. It took an
inordinate amount of time to try and assign those nodes to networks. I'm
relatively pleased with the result, but I don't guarantee that I'm entirely
done shifting them around...
I agree that inventing a name like Dijlelandse Kouters (based on Brabantse
Kouters combined with Dijleland) was not the best thing to do and I'll
remove that one.

What do people think of the following names I 'invented' though?

Westkust (part of Westhoek)
Scheldeland Denderstreek
Voorkempen
Kalmthoutse Heide
Hageland Droog Haspengouw

All these names are based on Wikipedia searches I performed. So it's not as
if they are based on nothing. I doubt that it will be possible to encounter
them anywhere on the guide posts though.

For the other subdivisions of Kust, Westhoek, Meetjesland, Leiestreek,
Waasland, Scheldeland, Vlaamse Ardennen and Kempen I simply used Noord,
Zuid, Oost en West to subdivide them.

What about splitting up Limburg in 3 or 4 regions?

Maasland, Haspengouw, Midden-Limburg and the part that extends into Liège.
Voerstreek was already separate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20111011/2a2bcf2f/attachment.htm>