[OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks

[Ben Laenen]

On Tuesday 11 October 2011 13:05:30 Jo wrote:
> 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.

People here should stop thinking in terms of "does editor X show Y". We tag 
the correct information, and if editors support it, then that's an bonus. We 
decided on the note tag long ago, and IIRC it was JOSM that started showing 
the note tag after we decided to use that tag for it.

The routes don't have a reference number, they don't have a name, they just 
connect two nodes, so we chose not to use the ref or name tag. But since we 
obviously needed a little bit of help to know which relation is which, we used 
the note tag.


> 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.

Except that I'm pretty sure that Fietsnet has been looking at the published 
maps as well. And I checked this out in the past by looking for differences 
between the published maps and the situation in reality and check them with 
Fietsnet, which consistently showed the situation in those maps, even though 
some routes would just be impossible.


> What do people think of the following names I 'invented' though?
> 
> Westkust (part of Westhoek)
> Scheldeland Denderstreek
> Voorkempen
> Kalmthoutse Heide
> Hageland Droog Haspengouw

Probably as good as any other name. The problem for me is: why even invent 
names like these? They're completely arbitrary and don't conform to any 
subdivision of the network in real life, so why should we tag them as such?

> 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.

Why even split it up at all in Belgium? For all I care, use one big network 
for every province, given that these networks are controlled by provinces.

Greetings
Ben