[OSM-talk-be] RFC: explicit tagging of 'Jaagpaden'
Pieter Vander Vennet
pietervdvn at posteo.net
Sun Mar 8 14:05:10 UTC 2020
Hey everyone,
Thanks for all the answers and different viewpoints, they were very
enriching for the discussion.
First of all, it seems that most of you are in favour of tagging them
explicitely somehow or are already doing it, no one is opposed to it -
but there are some practical remarks on how to do it.
It seems like 'designation=towpath' is what I was searching for to tag
the legality-aspect. I'm still wondering to use 'towpath' or 'jaagpad'
as the value for this tag (as this is very Flanders-specific).
For the historic use of a towpath and the quality of cycling there, I am
inclined to still put a 'towpath=yes' or even better:
'historic:towpath=yes' on it.
As the form of some historic towpaths have diverged from paths to
unclassified roads and all in between, `service=towpath` is indeed not
very suitable tagging. Note that routers will still take other factors
(such as maxspeed and road classification) into account when calculation
a score, so a towpath indication doesn't necessarily mean that it will
be taken at any cost.
I feel that we are getting close to a consensus. Are there further
remarks on what tags exactly to use?
PS: about the Haven-roads and Havengebied-roads - for now I would like
to focus on jaagpaden first as these are most important for our usecase.
If necessary, a new mailing list thread can be started for those.
On 04.03.20 20:35, Steven Clays wrote:
> In Belgium, a towpath is a legal designation (eg.
> designation=towpath), NOT something you can derive really from ground
> truth. Towpaths as suchs do physically not exist anymore: the distance
> between the path and the river is nowadays sometimes more then 50 m,
> the towpath is physically on a dike, or sometimes even perpendicular
> to the river...
>
>
> Op di 3 mrt. 2020 om 21:09 schreef Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com
> <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>>:
>
> As we map what is on the ground, we do not have to care about
> that, I would assume. Let someone else fight with the people that
> place the signs.
>
> m
>
> Op di 3 mrt. 2020 20:10 schreef Steven Clays
> <steven.clays at gmail.com <mailto:steven.clays at gmail.com>>:
>
> To make it more complex, not every signposted towpath in
> Flanders is legally a towpath. Check
> http://www.start2boat.be/vaaropleiding/downloads/reglementen/Bijzondere%20reglementen.pdf
>
> Op di 3 mrt. 2020 om 19:38 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
> <talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-be at openstreetmap.org>>:
>
> Hi,
>
> 'Jaagpaden' are not always paved roads. Often compacted,
> gravel, earthen, grassy, ... roads/tracks and then
> highway=track seems a better choice. Sometimes the only
> thing that's left is just a path. Then the tag
> service=towpath is rather odd. I use description=jaagpad.
> And what about similar roads which usually have the same
> access restrictions but are called 'haven' or
> 'havengebied' instead of 'jaagpad'?
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
>
>
> Op dinsdag 3 maart 2020 16:28:46 CET schreef Pieter Vander
> Vennet <pietervdvn at posteo.net
> <mailto:pietervdvn at posteo.net>>:
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200308/c6ab99cd/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/20200308/c6ab99cd/attachment.vcf>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list