[OSM-talk-be] temporary cycle routes

[Tim Couwelier]

I'll go with a 'no' here.

Let me explain why:
Both the main routes (fietsostrade, fietssnelweg, whatever you wish to call
it) and the 'BFF' ('Bovenlokaal functioneel fietstroutenet) are by no means
an indication of actual infrastructure being present, nor is it a measure
of quality for the infrastructure that's there.
The point of a map is to show what's there. Neither BFF nor the structural
network of 'bike highways' are relevant in that aspect, they only show
where we'd eventually like to see proper infrastructure.

Don't get me wrong, if there's a suitable way to give the proper bike
highways a little lovin' on the map, I'm all for it. But only when it's
actually there.
Stretches that aren't  there, or that are on the BFF but the cycleways are
mapped as part of the other infrastructure there, probably shouldn't be
mapped as such.

Let me illustrate with an example, the connection 'Roeselare - Torhout',
along the train line:
- between Spoorweglaan and Mandeldreef the trajectory is drawn very badly.
- The stretch between Mandeldreef and Koning Leopold III-laan is yet to be
constructed (but at least building permit is in, afaik)
- Along the Regina Woutersweg there's so seperate bike infrastructure
- North of the Wijnendalestraat the bike path suddenly stops. The extension
of the currently present trajectory would run right across a (trucking)
transport company, and there's no opening in sight.
- it assumes a crossing below a bridge (R32), where there's no room between
the current road and train tracks (concrete bridge pillars in the way)
- the entire remaining stretch up to Stationsstraat in Gits is NOT THERE.
- ....

How would one suggest mapping a such vision?



I will however state I'm in favor of covering the proper stretches through
relations, very much like the node networks, and what's on OpenCycleMap.
Sticking to 'mapping what's on the ground' would - to me - seem the best
way to go.
If there's clear intent on finishing missing links (like a piece in
Zwevegem, on the Guldensporenroute) could probably very early onwards get
mapped as 'under construction'.





2018-02-01 16:29 GMT+01:00 Ben Abelshausen <ben.abelshausen at gmail.com>:

> In London some of the routes are mapped as proposed, it's a bit annoying
> if you don't know that they are just proposed and not actually there:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6691788
>
> Rendering is a dotted version of the normal line on the cycle layer:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.54524/-0.01871&layers=C
>
> So, not sure if we should be mapping this if they don't exist yet... but
> if it's an 'official' detour why not? Some of these routes are only virtual
> anyway and not signed at all.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:55 PM, joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I got an interesting question today. As the Flemish "fietsostrades"
>> (fietssnelwegen, or cycle highways) are taking shape, so they are being
>> mapped in OSM. People are already using the data, even though in reality,
>> this is till very much a project.
>>
>> In more and more places, parts are completely ready, but then just stop.
>> And in some cases, there is an "official detour" of the fietsostrade. So
>> while the infrastructure is not there yet, in a sense the route is already
>> there.
>>
>> How do you think this should be mapped, if at all?
>>
>> --
>> Joost Schouppe
>> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
>> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20180201/17cc0238/attachment.htm>