[OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Jo]

Hi Pieter,

You are right, that is an odd way of tagging them. cycle_highway seems
better indeed. I don't know who started doing it that way, I simply
continued the practice, without giving it enough thought.

Most of these cycle highways can't be cycled from beginning to end, they
continue over large distances (for bicycles). This means they are all
tagged with state=proposed. Some of them are mostly done though, like F1 or
F3, but the parts that are missing from them will take several years to
complete. Do we want to keep them with state=proposed?

What I started doing is to also map alternatives that can be cycled from
start to end today. I recently learned this is not really appreciated by
some official instances. They don't control what we do, so it's not
extremely important, but still maybe something to keep in mind.

One thing I was considering to do, is to divide them in subrelations. Such
that the parts that are finished would go into both the 'official' relation
and into the alternative one. If you would like, I'll do this for F3, to
show what I mean.

Then there is also sometimes  a difference between what is shown on
fietsnelwegen.be and what is actually visible in the field. I'm thinking
about the situation in Veltem, where F3 has a leg on the southern side
marked in the field, but it is actually meant to go through the center of
Veltem, north of the railway it generally follows.

Most cycle highways are not yet visible in the field. The signs aren't
placed yet. For example F203 from Sterrebeek to Sint-Stevens-Woluwe. It
passes through Kraainem over 2 cycleways of 50cm, with no separation to
motorized traffic that is allowed to go at 70km/h there. Then it goes
through the center with lots of crossings. This is a bit odd, as there is
the possibility to pass through Molenstraat, wich is a lot safer and has a
far better experience for the cyclist.

The alternative route relations I was creating, are meant to disappear
after a few years, but that point, I might be tempted to keep it, even when
the official instances decide to keep the less suitable itinerary.

One general problem with the cycle highways, today, is that it's next to
impossible to apply 'ground truth'  to them, except if we would only map
the parts that are actually already finished and marked in the field.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. If I find some more time, I might
continue mapping the official ones, with the projected parts, like I did it
here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history

But for longer stretches. I have no idea if they are planning to add those
dedicated cycleways in the next 2 years, or in the next 15 years though.

For the ones that I audited over the past year, there are many pictures on
Mapillary.

Polyglot

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Pieter Vander Vennet <pietervdvn at posteo.net>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner which takes
> 'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to have some uniform
> tagging into place for this.
>
> Some of them are already tagged with `cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`, which
> sounds very Flemish.
>
> I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing fietssnelwegen, but
> would like to document them on the wiki and to have some more thought
> put into them. First of all, the dutch term is something very
> inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps "cycle_highway" is a better
> fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with "BE:". Thirdly, OSM tags
> are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is not.
>
> Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially looking looking forward to
> input from polyglot who is very familiar with them.
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191210/dcfdf9ce/attachment.htm>