[OSM-talk-be] Fwd: Re: tagging conventions
EeBie
ebe050 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 4 19:00:51 UTC 2021
Just to remind. The international convention is: _tracks_ are roads for
mostly /agricultural or forestry uses/.
This is not in contrast to the practice in Belgium where most paved
roads in the fields are tagged as _unclassified_.
Those roads are not only used by agricultural vehicles, they do not end
in a field or meadow,
but they are through roads between villages often more used by cyclists
than bytractors.
There are almost no paved roads with access restricted to agricultural
vehicles.
When there is no traffic sign to restrict access to these paved road,
tagging as track is wrong.
If there is a road sign, it is usually F99C meaning that those roads are
not specially meant for agriculture vehicles
but also designed for bicycles, pedestrians and horses. So classifying
as /unclassified/is best.
Paved roads for agricultural useonly can be tagged as track with
tracktype grade1.
But whenpaved smaller roads can and are used for bicycle trips, I like
to keep them as ‘unclassified’ and
I do my best to change those in this way.
In that way they look as quality roads on the map and not as tracks.
Regards,
E.
-------- Doorgestuurd bericht --------
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-be] tagging conventions
Datum: Sun, 3 Jan 2021 19:54:20 +0100
Van: Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>
Antwoord-naar: OpenStreetMap Belgium <talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
Aan: OpenStreetMap Belgium <talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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
--
"Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
- Thor Heyerdahl
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20210104/1335134c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list