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

Mon Dec 23 23:48:59 UTC 2019

Go ahead, they are not important to me. I was trying to create itineraries
that get you from one place to another today, instead of in 5 or 10 years.

I like to see bicycle routes that are continuous. That is usually not
possible today on any of the fietsnelwegen.

Jo

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 23:40 EeBie <ebe050 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with the remarks of Stijn. Only the parts of the "Fietssnelwegen"
> that are realized and “Befietsbaar” on the website of Fietssnelwegen and/or
> marked in the field as such, should be on OSM as cycle route.
> During the past 2 years I suffered several times from the unreliable
> information on OSM as a user of OSM based bike route planners. Planned
> cycle highways were put on the map as realized and existing. A bike
> routeplanner makes a route with preference to cycle routes that are on OSM.
> I supposed to follow a cycle highway but landed on a single track path of
> 30 cm wide with surface of soft sand that I had to walk. On another spot I
> was following a paved footway and had to squeeze my brakes at once because
> the paved footway went over in a stairs downwards where a bridge will be
> build in the future. Luckily it was in daylight and feasible; users of
> cycle highways are supposed to take these routes before and after work when
> it is dark.The proposed routes on OSM are dangerous.
>
> I have given that cycle highway relation the state proposed=yes that makes
> that they are not taken in account on bike routeplanners and on
> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org (those proposed relations are visible
> on the Bike Map layer on OSM cycle map layer
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1244996#map=15/50.7919/5.4333&layers=C>
> ). There was a fixme or incomplete remark on those relations of planned
> cycle highways but those doesn’t make that they are neglected by
> routeplanners.
>
> I have put the proposed state on other cycle highways that were mapped as
> going through fences over private industrial premises and others where
> biking was not permitted or where even was no path at all.
>
> I have deleted parts of cycle highways in the route relation where bike
> riding wasn’t possible as for example on railway bridge
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242291877#map=17/51.07556/5.21979&layers=C>
> where the bridge wasn’t ready a few months back (maybe it is meanwhile, but
> I wasn’t there recently).
>
> A few years back I have mapped *parts* of cycle highways that where ready
> and marked and put on the website as “Befietsbaar” in a route relation but
> I had to notice that parts that weren’t ready were added to those relations.
>
> I also don’t like the “alternative cycle highways” because they only exist
> in the head of one person and their quality is (in a lot of cases) very
> poor and dangerous. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17298358
> If you take this path riding on modal electric bike style downwards from
> the embankment of the canal over a small unpaved path to a narrow bridge
> over a ditch, you are death. And that should be highway for bikes.
>
> I propose to *delete all what is “**alternatief Fietssnelweg” *because
> they are non existing and they make OSM unreliable because those routes are
> put as preferred by routeplanners.
>
> For the F Fietswegen I propose to *delete the parts that are not ready*
> from the route relations and leave the parts that are ready and
> “Befietsbaar” as on the on Fietssnelwegen website (putting the “proposed”
> status to a complete F relation isn’t a solution any more because parts of
> them are released as “Befietsbaar”).
>
> Regards,
>
> Eebie
>
>
>
>
> Op 23/12/19 om 21:10 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't understand why nobody else objects to the 'alternatives'. They're
> just somebody's personal inventions, but they do not exist. If we allow
> Jo's alternatives, then we have to allow anybody's alternatives,
> suggestions , etc. for cycle highways or any other kind of hiking, cycle,
> ... routes. E.g. the cycle highway between Diest and Hasselt has been
> deleted: can I add to OSM a good alternative that I use daily? I hope the
> aswer is no. I don't mind that somebody suggests on some website alternatives
> for the cycle highways which do not yet exist. It's even a very good idea,
> but please keep them out of the OSM database.
> In my opinion, only those parts which are already waymarked should be in
> OSM as cycle highways (and shown on e.g.
> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org). The fact that there is a road or a
> cycle path which might be turned into a cycle highway, doesn't mean that
> there is a cycle highway. So, all the rest: state=proposed. [As it is
> already difficult enough to keep OSM a bit up to date, adding things which
> might be realised in some distant future seems to me a bit of a waste of
> time. But that's just my opinion. Anyone is free to do so.]
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
>
> Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:23:51 CET schreef Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>
> <winfixit at gmail.com>:
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing listTalk-be at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20191224/5d9a0d46/attachment.htm>