[OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions

[Jo]

Darn, they seem to have forgotten to put F9 traffic signs! I did forget to
mention the bicycle lane is completely separate, although they do cross the
on/off ramps.

I thought N25 was still trunk between De Mol (Tiensesteenweg) and Blanden
(we call it De Expressweg), but that's not true anymore.

The F9 sign is not present either on the only bit of road which still is
mapped as trunk in Leuven. Our connection between the Kapucijnenvoer on the
ring road and E40/E314, the N264/ Boudewijnlaan. This one doesn't have
cycle paths, but no signs to explicitely prohibit cyclists from using it.
Hardly any cyclists consider using the escape lane though. There are better
alternatives over the university campus, which look a lot more inviting.

I guess I'll have to rest my case and put it to bed. Tuck it in and never
look back :-)

Jo

2012/12/27 Johan C <osmned at gmail.com>

> Sign F9 = autoweg = trunk
>
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkeersborden_in_Belgi%C3%AB_-_Serie_F:_Aanwijzingsborden
>
> Nice to read on this topic (sorry, it's in |Dutch):
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=16232
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=16231
>
> Cheers, Johan
>
>
> 2012/12/27 Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>
>
>> Now that we're on the subject of road classification, The northern part
>> of the ring of Leuven has separate lanes for both directions, no traffic
>> lights, on and off ramps like a motorway and the maximum speed is 90 km/h
>> (a rare occurence these days in Flanders).
>> The southern part has crossings with traffic lights and a speed limit of
>> 50 km/h, complete with a truckload of traffic cams to enforce it.
>>
>> At some point I had tagged the northern part as trunk, since it's  far
>> more interesting to go that way from east to west or west to east, so why
>> wouldn't we visualise that on a rendered map? Somebody retagged the whole
>> ring road as primary afterwards and I left it as such, since I didn't feel
>> like starting an edit war. It still feels like a missed chance to be the
>> better map though.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> 2012/12/27 Kevin Grossard <grossard_kevin at hotmail.com>
>>
>>>  > On Thursday 27 December 2012 09:51:36 Kevin Grossard wrote:
>>> > > The wiki about the highway conventions distinguishes primairy,
>>> secondary
>>> > > and tertiairy roads using the N-numbers (although there are some
>>> question
>>> > > marks). Using the current conventions means using the old
>>> classification
>>> > > when the N-numbers were given. Various N-ways got reconstructed, the
>>> > > traffic got redirected by other roads, some roads aren't suitable
>>> anymore
>>> > > for the current traffic.
>>> > >
>>> > > The spatial structure plan for Flanders (ruimtelijk structuurplan
>>> > > Vlaanderen) has a list with the primairy roads [pages 368-377
>>> > > http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ruimtelijk/docs/rsv2011/RSV2011.pdf]. I
>>> suggest
>>> > > to adjust the wiki so there will be an uniform highway classification
>>> > > where primairy roads are the roads selected in the structure plan.
>>> The
>>> > > other N-roads can be describes as secondary roads. Tertiary roads
>>> can be
>>> > > described as other important local roads (nl: steenwegen die geen
>>> > > secundaire weg zijn). Minor or residential roads can be understand as
>>> > > local roads (nl: lokale wegen). What do you think?
>>> >
>>> > I don't really think we can just take that classification and apply it
>>> to OSM.
>>> > It may not look like it from the map in that file, but it would make
>>> Flanders
>>> > almost void of primary roads. Our government isn't very keen to give
>>> lots of
>>> > roads a primary status. And all the dead-end primary roads won't give
>>> a nice
>>> > map either (ringway of Lier without any primary road connecting to it,
>>> things
>>> > like that).
>>> >
>>> > I've been aware about the official classification (read some previous
>>> > discussions in the mailing list archive), but I think we at least need
>>> to
>>> > include some secundary classified roads tagged as primary in OSM to
>>> make a
>>> > useful map. So far, we don't have a list of those. In the UK, the
>>> category of
>>> > official primary roads would be tagged as trunk in OSM.
>>> >
>>> > That said, using road numbers to determine OSM classification is
>>> actually how
>>> > it's done in most countries. It's not perfect by far but we've always
>>> allowed
>>> > some deviations from the rule where it makes sense.
>>> >
>>> > Ben
>>>
>>> Okay, there aren't a lot of primary roads in Belgium but that's the
>>> result of the historical urban planning and short term vision.
>>> Fact is that primary roads also differ in reality from the secondary
>>> roads. For example like the surface, the lack of houses, shops and
>>> schools (lineair settlement and crossings through villages), the lack of
>>> cycle tracks, ...
>>>
>>> Using the road numbers is a lot easier and that's a good argument but
>>> the goal of OSM isn't making the Belgium roads more attractive, i suppose?
>>> I don't get why a dead end primary road connected to a secondary road can't
>>> be useful. They will look stupid but that's reality and where
>>> urban planning in Belgium is all about.
>>>
>>> But like you said, it would be useful to make a list with exceptions to
>>> make and keep it simple if that's the way you want to keep it.
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121227/e07ab049/attachment.htm>