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

[Jo]

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020, 23:07 Pieter Vander Vennet <pietervdvn at posteo.net>
wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> After some silence in this thread, I would like to close it with a small
> wrap-up.
>
> As the consensus is clear, I've created a wiki page describing the tag in
> detail
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycle_network%3Dcycle_highway>.
> Feel free to update, add or correct on this page. Additionally, I've added
> links and updated tagging on a few wiki pages where I encountered the old
> tagging.
>
>
> Secondly, I would wish to thank Polyglot for his extensive work on the
> mapping of these cycle networks and to already execute the changes
> described here!
>

I may have made a mistake though. I only saw it when I reread the thread;
BE: is missing.

> Thirdly, I would like to thank everyone involved for all the ideas and the
> constructive way everything was discussed!
>
> Kind regards & best wishes for 2020,
> Pietervdvn
>
>
>
> On 26.12.19 11:16, EeBie wrote:
>
> I am checking  some cycling highways with status proposed and keep the
> parts that are released as usable (Befietsbaar) in the relation and delete
> the status proposed to make them visible and usable in routeplanners.
> I experienced that the information on the website Fietssnelwegen.be is not
> 100% correct. There are parts released where no bike access is allowed. I
> leave these parts out and also the parts over unpaved paths that are
> difficult for usual bikes.
>
> Eebie
>
> Op 25/12/19 om 13:14 schreef joost schouppe:
>
> Hi Jo,
>
> I think that's the right thing to do, thank you.
>
> What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is unfinished, but
> large sections of them are, then I would think the finished parts do
> deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about this briefly before, maybe
> someone here has an idea how to split up the route (say F3) in three types
> of subrelations :
>
> - usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
> - usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
> - unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)
>
> As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't
> belong in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked. For
> example, in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official detour
> that will be in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind of situation
> needs to ge in a fourth type...
>
> Joost
>
> Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:
>
>> All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed the
>> remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not possible to
>> use them today to get from the start till the end, they are marked as
>> state=proposed.
>>
>> Jo
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 listTalk-be at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> --
> 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/20200106/2b92ae2b/attachment.htm>