[OSM-talk-be] fietspad of niet

[Glenn Plas]

On 2013-10-03 05:47, Marc Gemis wrote:
> 2013/10/2 Gilbert Hersschens <ghersschens at gmail.com>:
>> Ik denk dat de foto bij
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway duidelijk is. Een
>> bord C3 met onderbord is niet hetzelfde als een bord D7.
>>
> Via deze pagina vond ik
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Belgium
>
> Kent iemand die pagina ? Een van de uitspraken is bv. dat  designated
> niet nodig in België is.
>
> "There's no reason for a "designated" access tag in Belgium as there
> is no reason why one has more rights over the other on any of these
> highway types when different vehicle types have access to a road.
> "designated" is therefore synonym with "yes". Footways could both be
> signed with a sign that doesn't show a pedestrian at all, and one that
> does, so basing a designated tag on traffic signs is also flawed."
>
>
> -----
>
> English Version
>
>  From the page mentioned by Gilbert, I discovered
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Belgium.
> It states e.g. that the key designated is useless in Belgium:
>
> "There's no reason for a "designated" access tag in Belgium as there
> is no reason why one has more rights over the other on any of these
> highway types when different vehicle types have access to a road.
> "designated" is therefore synonym with "yes". Footways could both be
> signed with a sign that doesn't show a pedestrian at all, and one that
> does, so basing a designated tag on traffic signs is also flawed."
>

Sorry, maar met die logica volg ik niet.  Met onderbord voor C3 beter te 
bepalen erbij moet je toch voor 'destination' kiezen.   Ik vind deze 
bepaling voor 'designated' wat kort door de bocht.

Glenn