[OSM-talk-be] slowroads conventions

[Francois Gerin]

Hi Stijn,

Thanks a lot for sharing this. Despite the many hours I spent reading 
the doc, I never found this one... It definitely deserves attention from 
mappers focused on this network.

After reading, and with the various experiences I got mapping 
specifically that network, I would like to bring two elements to the 
attention of other mappers sharing the same interests:

1. Both the *designation* and *vicinal_ref* tags are definitely useful, 
I missed them a lot. Now I'll be able to refine the many places where it 
is useful, for both communities (balnam and OSM).

2. If sometime I spent half an hour deciding between highway=track and 
highway=path, I also spent _hours_ to decide between a path and a 
footway... Here is THE point that I would like to insist on, and that 
should probably be refined in the draft:
  In the main description of the *highway* tag, for the *footway* value, 
ONE word is really import: [...] "*mainly*/exclusively for pedestrians"
This "mainly" word allows to make a clean distinction according to the 
real world. This distinction is definitely necessary, and it would be a 
big issue if that "*mainly*" word disappears. The various places in the 
doc bring the reader to conclude that a footway must have a 
visible/clear restriction for pedestrians only. This would force to use 
a "path" in more than 99% cases, with the loss of an important 
information: Is that way usable for a non-pedestrian, non-sportman, a 
normal user (bicycler)? Is a biker welcome there?

If that second point is not clear, just think of a different rendering, 
like OpenCycleMap... For cycling, paths would stay visible, footways 
would disappear. This may imply a deviation of >20km or a trip 
cancellation for bicyclers!
Also, a bicycler may be anybody on his Sunday ride, or a confirmed 
moutainbiker with good technical capabilities.
Another example of dramatic consequences would be the result of routing 
software, like brouter.de, which could not be reliable at all!
=> Accurate information is fully relevant/important. (Rendering, as 
always, is secondary notion, that must not influence the accuracy of the 
data itself.)

NOTE: Please, consider checking around the *trail_visibility* tag too... 
It seems there are contradictions between this draft and the main 
understanding/other descriptions! There are many misuses of this one.

Regards,
François


On 12/08/20 18:11, Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A side step from the discussion of the previous days.
> This page exists [1], but it isn't listed under the conventions here [2]. If I'm not mistaken it once was, but has disappeared from that list after a while. Does somebody know why? Or did it just fall off...
> Or is it because it still has a 'draft' status? Then it is maybe time to accept this proposal instead of leaving it for years as a draft.
> Anyway, if that page were a bit more visible, perhaps more people would follow those (draft) conventions (and also use the correct tags, e.g. vicinal_ref instead of ref or name).
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200812/a03ac788/attachment.htm>