[OSM-talk-be] RFC: explicit tagging of 'Jaagpaden'

[s8evq]

Hi Pieter,

So to be clear, you want to tag the historic usage of a road as a towpath? 

As a way of finding pleasant cycle ways, it's probably mostly valid. Two things I think about:

For example, this (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/r1iBEQmaUlqv0BHGmDoIGw) would also classify as historic tow path. There is no cycle lane and cars can drive 50. (even 70 on the other side of the canal, before the crossroad).

On the other hand, the paths along the Albertkanaal wouldn't fit under a historic definition of towpath, as the canal was finished 1946 and the paths were most likely not used or intended to tow boats by.

What would be the criteria for this kind of road? Be parallel along a canal that historically had tow boats traffic?


On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:28:15 +0100, Pieter Vander Vennet <pietervdvn at posteo.net> wrote:

> Hey Marc,
> 
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> IMHO all towpaths are indeed peculiar service roads, thus
> 'highway=service' + 'service=towpath'. The wiki even mentions explicitly
> that it should be a service road.
> 
> The examples you sent are excellent examples where the legal signposting
> didn't catch up with the historic usage. These clearly used to be
> towpath but they didn't gain the legal recognition of a 'jaagpad'.
> Personally, I would tag those with 'service=towpath' (reflecting the
> historic usage) but not with 'towpath=yes', but this is very subject to
> change. We might even consider `towpath=no` (with a note clarifying this
> is legally _not_ a 'jaagpad') or `legal:towpath=no` or something similar.
> 
> Another thought: if we are about using 'towpath=yes' to reflect the
> legal status, I'm doubting that there is no better tag scheme for this.
> 
> 
> Kind regards, Pieter
> 
> 
> On 03.03.20 16:12, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > I'm fine with explicitly mapping them.
> > Isn't service=towpath strange on a way that is not tagged as
> > highway=service? (but you know that I think they should have been
> > mapped as highway=service in the first place, but this is not the
> > case)
> >
> > So it's meant for all those that are explicitly signed as "Jaagpad"
> > and not for any others? So this
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3T0U_uBJxNXHfrgwdztQDQ is not a
> > Jaagpad? (a bit further
> > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.05439739997222&lng=4.4334043&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=cmVJ5z_VXnZqwsdrEK0aHw
> > , but that still does not make it a Jaadpad?)
> >
> > m.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 2:14 PM Pieter Vander Vennet
> > <pietervdvn at posteo.net> wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> Even though the legal restrictions of 'Jaagpaden' (towpaths in proper English) is already described in detail on the wiki, it would still be useful to reflect the special status explicitly, in our case to give a comfort bonus in cycling route planning but also for historical purposes.
> >>
> >> For context, a 'jaagpad', 'trekpad' or towing path is a path that used to be used to (literally) tow boats through the canals, either with manpower or horsepower and a rope attached to the boat - hence there are never trees between a towpath.
> >>
> >> With the rise of cheap and powerful combustion engines, this practice became disused and towpaths became service roads and cycleways.
> >>
> >> As stated, these often are excellent and heavily preferred by cyclists. Normally, they are wide, asphalted, there are very few cars and especially: there is the very nice scenery of the canal.
> >>
> >> Therefore, I would propose to introduce tagging in Belgium to tag towpaths.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are two ways to achieve this:
> >>
> >> - A towpath is typically a specific type of service road, so we can add `service=towpath`
> >>
> >> - In the UK, the towpaths are tagged with `towpath=yes`
> >>
> >> Note that towpaths in Flanders are mostly signposted with an official sign, even though that this is a bit of a legal remnant of a previous era. However, it makes it very explicit and thus unambiguous to map.
> >>
> >> But now, for the serious questions:
> >>
> >> - what are your thoughts of mapping them somehow? IMHO it is an added value and I'm quite in favour of them.
> >>
> >> - What is the best way of mapping them? I'm a bit on the edge of the options above: `service=towpath` is IMHO semantically the most correct form, as it indicates that it is a service road originally built for towing. `towpath=yes` reeks more of the legal status (i.e. having a formal road sign indicating 'jaagpad'). The latter has the advantage of already being in use in the UK with over 3500 instances according to taginfo. service=towpath is not in use at the moment.
> >>
> >>
> >> PS: fun etymological fact: the English verb 'to tow' is derived from the Dutch word for rope: 'touw'
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be