[OSM-talk-be] Fwd: Re: tagging conventions
s8evq
s8evqq at runbox.com
Tue Jan 5 08:48:00 UTC 2021
Here's another example of a paved track, with tracktype=1:
https://goo.gl/maps/BezMBe9H6qjAiuQy8
This is mainly used by pedestrians. I have only once seen a maintenance crew use this road. So yes, perhaps "forestry use"?
But I would not see this as unclassified. Marc pointed us to the definition: "should be used for roads used for local traffic, and for roads used to connect other towns," That doesn't fir for me here.
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 20:00:51 +0100, 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list