[OSM-talk-be] Fwd: Re: tagging conventions

Mon Jan 4 19:11:15 UTC 2021

in this particular case, the paving stops after ca 200m and the road is
unpaved after that. I did not see any local traffic and I assume the road
is only used by farmers.
Of course, the road is also used by pedestrians, as there is a walking
route. I believe there was also an MTB-route, but I hope no one will retag
it for those reasons to footway or cycleway.

As far as my observation goes for this particular road, "highway
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=unclassified should be
used for roads used for local traffic, and for roads used to connect other
towns," is not fulfilled.

please note that the original definition of "unclassified" is based on the
British road classification where "unclassified" is a road class.

regards

m.

p.s. 2 lanes of concrete is typically an indication that it is a track and
not an unclassified road.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 8:02 PM EeBie <ebe050 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 by tractors.
>
> 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 use only can be tagged as track with
> tracktype grade1.
> But when paved 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> <marc.gemis at gmail.com>
> Antwoord-naar: OpenStreetMap Belgium <talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> <talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> Aan: OpenStreetMap Belgium <talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> <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> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210104/1e518308/attachment-0001.htm>