[OSM-talk-be] tagging conventions

Sun Jan 3 18:54:20 UTC 2021

I agree that it makes no sense to require that a track is unpaved. Take
e.g. this road: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6Rt57ujlrmgcfRttgbeFXm
What else can it be than a track?

As for the difference between cycleway and path, that is more difficult.
For me, a cycleway requires a D7 sign. Without this sign, it is a path. A
Jaagpad is also no cycleway. See the wiki for the latest tagging of
Jaagpaden.

regards

m.

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:16 PM Wouter Hamelinck <wouter.hamelinck at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It is a discussion that comes back once in a while and I agree that having
> a separate Belgian meaning for a very common tag as track makes no sense.
> I'm also following the international wiki in that regard.
>
> wouter
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 7:00 PM s8evq <s8evqq at runbox.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>
>
> --
> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
>                                        - Thor Heyerdahl
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210103/392e247b/attachment.htm>