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

Tue Dec 10 17:35:51 UTC 2019

Hello Jo,

Thanks for the informative answer which offers a very informed view and
for your many contributions.

I'll break it up onto multiple subtitles, as there are some sub-topics
emerging.

*Tagging scheme*

I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network
normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already
tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that
next week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.

*state=proposed and ground truth
*

This is a very good semantic question. Officially, we could only lift
the state=proposed when all the signposts are present. Alternatively, we
could have the relation only containing the parts that are already
cyclable, and having another relation containing the unfinished parts,
but I feel that this is a lot of work for little to no gain. If a
segment has 'highway=proposed' on it, well, the meaning of that is quite
clear. So, practically speaking, how it is done now is quite good.

*Alternative routes*

The alternatives pose a different problem. I think that the best
solution would be to have a single extra relation for each alternative
leg - but only containing the differing parts, which would avoid having
cycleways which are part of both the official and alternative ways.

For tagging, I find it however hard to add a
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway` to it. Maybe we could opt for
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway:unofficial` or
`cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway:alternative`? It should be noted however
that these will never be verifiable on the ground and thus a bit against
the OSM-spirit! Their disappearing nature thus is a bonus.

Practically speaking, our routeplanner should be able to figure out a
decent route over missing links.

*The website fietssnelwegen.be*

First of all, the earlier link lacked one S. For the record, the
correct, working website is https://fietssnelwegen.be/

I've always considered that website as being informative for the public
- and as how they were planned years ago with quite a bit of guesswork.
It looks to me that they took a map and drew some approximate lines on
them, open to change.

In the Veltem case could be an example of that where the plans were
amended. This view also answers the question on what to map: in my
opinion, the signposted cycle network /is/ the official network, even if
this website happens says otherwise. Even more, it simply indicates that
fietssnelwegen.be should be updated, not that OSM should copy incorrect
data.

About your alternative for F203 passing Kraainem via Molenstraat
instead: maybe, because the signs aren't placed yet, we should try
contact the official instances and try to change the F203 there? It
clearly isn't to late for that and would make for a better, safer route.
It seems to have happened that way in the Veltem case as well.

At last: why aren't they just using an overpass-based map? It could show
the status, surface, lit=yes/no for each segment and calculate all of
that live!

*The master relation*

At last, I've also created a master relation containing all the F*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6682883

All current cycle highways are included in that, but as I'm not familiar
how master relations work, the tagging could probably be improved. Feel
free to edit and/or let me know how this could be improved.

With kind regards and looking forward to more input,
Pieter

On 10.12.19 16:23, Jo wrote:
> 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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20191210/0345984b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pietervdvn.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20191210/0345984b/attachment.vcf>