[OSM-talk-be] tagging conventions

[s8evq]

I was not aware of these national conventions, and therefor also never adhered to it. I always used the wiki pages on the different highway types. I'm not sure why we would need to differ from the international standards. It's already hard enough as is :)

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 17:21:55 +0100, Jan Cnops <jan.cnops at scarlet.be> wrote:

> Hi,
> An Overpass Turbo query shows that there are quite some ways tagged as
> higway=track and tracktype=grade1, so definitely paved.
> In a somewhat wider perspective: I recently saw a road retagged to
> highway=service. In the past that road had been mapped at various times
> as highway=cycleway, highway=path and highway=track with
> tracktype=grade1.
> This kind of retagging happens rather often, and it shows there is a
> problem there: it is clear that it makes the map less useful than it
> could be. If mappers are confused about what a way should be tagged
> like, users will be confused what a certain tag means for the road.
> Isn't it time to clean up things?
> The problem seems to lie with those roads which are important for
> cyclists: smaller roads with limited or no motorised traffic.
> I have no idea what the proper procedure is to change the Wiki, as some
> form of consensus is obviously needed.  Does one start with an RFC on
> this mailing list, or something like that?
> Season greetings,
> JanFi
> Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be schreef op za 02-01-2021 om 09:00 [+0000]:
> >                 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > A reminder to everyone: as far as I can see this convention hasn't
> > changed...
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > StijnRR
> > 
> >             
> >                                                                      
> >                    On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, 05:59:16 PM GMT+1,
> > Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com>
> > wrote:                                
> >                 
> >                 I'm sure you can look through this mailing list's
> > history and find all kinds of 
> > discussion about it in the past...
> > 
> > Long story short: the unpaved thing was more or less the original
> > usage, then 
> > it was changed in some other countries which was set as the
> > international 
> > definition and in Belgium we didn't change it.
> > 
> > Personally I think the difference unpaved <-> paved for track <->
> > other road 
> > types makes much more sense in Belgium, and also much more objective.
> > 
> > Ben
> > 
> > 
> > On Tuesday 22 December 2015 08:37:35 joost schouppe wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I was looking at this page:
> > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/
> > Highways
> > > 
> > > And I saw only unpaved roads are supposed to be tagged as track.
> > I've been
> > > seeing quite a few rural roads which only allow agricultural
> > vehicles and
> > > only lead to fields. They look to me essentially as paved tracks.
> > In most
> > > of the world (i.e. outside of Europe) what the road is used for
> > trumps road
> > > quality when it comes to classification.
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't this "Unpaved roads with traces of motor traffic or
> > accessible to
> > > motor traffic" be replaced by something like "Paths which show use
> > of
> > > occasional motor traffic, or are designed to do so and that don't
> > prohibit
> > > such use. Generally unpaved and used to access forests or
> > agricultural
> > > fields."
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be