[OSM-talk-be] Request to change the cycle highway network tag

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hello everyone,

Minh NGuyen had the following remark on the wiki
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:cycle_network%3Dcycle_highway>
about the current tagging scheme of the cycle highways.

Anyone any thought on it?


Incompatible with cycle_network

This tag is incompatible with the predominant usage of cycle_network
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycle_network>=*. This key was
originally intended to identify a specific network with uniform
signage – a renderer was supposed to be able to choose a shield based on
a combination of cycle_network
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycle_network>=* and ref
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref>=*. But it appears that
cycle highways are signposted and numbered differently in each country,
so there's no such cycle network as "cycle highway":

  *

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:F7_teller_-_Gent_-_Kortrijk_-_ter_hoogte_van_station_Deinze.jpg>

Belgium

  *
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2019Radschnellweg.jpg>

Germany

  *
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fietssnelweg_F35_at_Go_Planet.jpg>

Netherlands

A renderer would have to perform a spatial query to reliably display the
correct shield for each of these routes, somewhat undermining the push
to have renderers use route relations instead of ref
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref>=* tags on ways.

We already made this mistake once by repurposing the network
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network>=lcn/rcn/ncn tags for
routes outside the United Kingdom, leading to the otherwise redundant
key cycle_network
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycle_network>=* as a
workaround. Let's avoid making this mistake again by deprecating
cycle_network
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycle_network>=cycle_highway
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycle_network%3Dcycle_highway>
in favor of country-prefixed values like cycle_network
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycle_network>=NL:cycle_highway
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:cycle_network%3DNL:cycle_highway=edit=1>,
or by choosing a different key altogether like cycle_highway
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:cycle_highway=edit=1>=yes.


– Minh Nguyễn <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Minh_Nguyen> ^
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Minh_Nguyen> 00:51, 5
October 2020 (UTC)

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk] Presenting MapComplete - a new easy-to-use editor

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey everyone,

I would like to present to you my newly built editor *MapComplete.

*MapComplete started out as a tool to be simple to use for one specific
topic, namely nature <https://buurtnatuur.be/>. Users could select a
piece of forest, nature reserve or park and answer questions about it;
or they could add one of those themselves.

I set it up from the start to support multiple themes (a bit like
MapContrib), and there are already quite a few themes available now
(namely aeds <https://pietervdvn.github.io/MapComplete/aed.html>,
bicycle POI <https://pietervdvn.github.io/MapComplete/cyclofix.html>,
ghost bikes
<https://pietervdvn.github.io/MapComplete/ghostbikes.html?z=1=16.299=-15.46>,
toilets <https://pietervdvn.github.io/MapComplete/toilets.html>, artwork
<https://pietervdvn.github.io/MapComplete/artwork.html>, and a few more).
But OSM wouldn't be OSM if that would have been enough. By now, there is
a page available where one can create their own theme
<https://pietervdvn.github.io/MapComplete/customGenerator.html>. If you
have over 500 changesets, you can create a theme from scratch which can
be shared via URL. The customgenerator is still very unpolished but
should be usable.

Development happens on github
<https://github.com/pietervdvn/MapComplete>. If you notice an issue or
have an idea, make sure to open an issue
<https://github.com/pietervdvn/MapComplete/issues>. There are still a
ton of bugs out there, and help on translations and more themes is
definitively welcome!

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

ngeset/88927825
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88927566
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think ? I believe that’s not a good way of
>>> doing things (I don’t believe in maptivism in this
>>> situation) but can’t really find a clear position of the
>>> community about this particular case.
>>>
>>> I don’t want to start a fight with that user because
>>> he’s really doing a great job at preserving the right of
>>> use of those heritage vicinal ways by confronting the
>>> Communes against those unfair owners. I would like to
>>> show him some string arguments to explain him why his
>>> initiative is not good for the community (If that’s the
>>> case).
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 
>>> Matthieu Gaillet
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@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@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Joost Schouppe
>>> OpenStreetMap
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
>>> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] wijzigingenset

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey Guy,

Geen nood, vergissen is menselijk.

Je hebt in JOSM het volledige pad idd versleept, ik heb het geselecteerd
en terug naar zijn oorspronkelijke beding geschoven. Schade ongedaan
gemaakt dus!
Bedankt om het zo eerlijk te melden en om hulp te vragen ook.

Mvg, Pieter

On 28.06.20 22:17, Guy Vanvuchelen wrote:
>
> Hallo,
>
>  
>
> Zojuist merk ik een fout in mijn eigen wijzigingenset:
>
>  
>
> 21 dagen geleden bewerkt door GuyVV
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GuyVV>
>
> Versie #14 · Wijzigingenset #86309285
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86309285>
>
>  
>
> Waarschijnlijk heb ik bij het verschuiven van de kaart twee (of meer)
> nodes versleept. Ik zie niet goed in hoe ik dat kan rechtzetten.
>
> Misschien moet de hele wijzigingenset ongedaan gemaakt worden maar ik
> weet ook niet hoe dat moet.
>
> Kan iemand me helpen of desnoods de hele set ongedaan maken.
>
>  
>
> Grt
>
>  
>
> Guy Vanvuchelen
>
>  
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>   Virusvrij. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Telenav Mapping Project

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hello Adrian and Telenav-team.

Welcome in Belgium, the more support, the merrier.

First of all, there is quite an active community in Belgium - I'm one of
them, as are several others. As already mentioned, the matrix-chat is an
excellent way to reach out to us and have questions answered quite fast
- please join us here: https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osmbe:matrix.org

Second, I was wondering where you are based - the best way to map is by
using local knowledge and by running around to see what the situation
is. Also, being here IRL will allow us to meetup or to get in touch with
the OpenKnowledge Belgium - they do great work for Open Source and Open
Data.

However, I presume that you will mostly be doing remote work, based on
official data and mapillary streetview. This too can be useful, but the
situation of Brussels is quite volatile and might change a lot. Don't be
afraid to to ask us (or a local) to check up on the situation.

At last, a lot of cyclists are using OSM in Brussels - the company I
work for even hosts  a professional cycle route planner for the city.
Please, be careful not to break it. Especially when adding 'oneway=yes',
this might force the routeplanner to consider this oneway /for cyclists
as well./ Please, if it is clear that cyclists are allowed to go both
ways, add 'oneway:bicycle=no' or, even better, add the appropriate
cycleway tags ('cycleway=lane', 'cycleway=track', ...)

Kind regards,
Pietervdvn


On 22.04.20 13:08, Adrian Budugan wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am Adrian and I am part of the Mapping Team at Telenav. Our team
> started an editing project in Belgium to make OpenStreetMap more
> navigable and accurate in guidance.
>
> We will start editing in Brussels at the end of April, next week.
> There are more details here
> - https://github.com/TelenavMapping/EU_mapping_projects/issues/4.
>
> We will focus on one ways, turn restrictions, road geometry and
> quality assurance.
>
> We we'd love to hear your advice on any local mapping guidelines,
> besides the general OSM mapping
> ones (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page, 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features).
>
> Also, we appreciate any hints regarding available local or government
> data that we might be able to us or anything else that might come in
> handy.
>
> If there are any other OSM communication channels for Belgium, please
> let us know. 
>
> If you have any questions or comments, please let me/us know.
>
> We are looking forward to hearing from you.
>
>  
>
> Thank you!
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] cycling allong the R4 in Gent

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey everyone,

We are doing a lot of cycle route planning. 'use_sidepath' is a very
clear hint to us and interpreted as 'don't use', in order to force the
cyclist over the cyclepath just next to it. So please, do add them!

Mvg, Pieter

On 09.04.20 12:27, Jo wrote:
> Since both the highway and the cycleway are separate (mostly parallel)
> 'entities' in OSM, I think it does make sense to use
> bicycle=use_sidepath. For routing purposes, it's probably not needed,
> while editing in JOSM and for highlighting using MapCSS it is handy to
> have the tags directly on the objects they apply to.
>
> Jo
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:00 PM Wouter Hamelinck
> mailto:wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> All three are correct in my opinion. Tbh, I've never really
> understood the use of use_sidepath. The only case where it
> contains really helpful information for me is when that
> alternative is not mapped. But then there is a more efficient
> solution...
> But I don't really have anything for or against any of the options.
>
> The third option is correct, but is a little uninformative,
> especially since you actually ARE allowed to cycle on some
> parts of this same R4
>
>
> Isn't the first question here if they should be trunk if you are
> allowed to cycle?
>
> wouter
> -- 
> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
>                                        - Thor Heyerdahl
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] IBPT antennas

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

ly in the structure tag. But that was
> never formally proposed and approved AFAIK. 
> I don't know if you want to go into the rabbit holes of trying to
> adapt a new tagging scheme for this ahah. *Anyway we can use the
> current scheme as it would be easier now. ;-) 
> *
>
> Kind Regards,
> Lionel
>
> Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 00:36, Midgard  <mailto:midgard%2btal...@janmaes.com>> a écrit :
>
> Replying inline to s8evq and Karel:
>
> Quoting s8evq (2020-03-08 20:20:34)
> > What is the point of adding longitude=* and latitude=* to the nodes?
>
> I had overlooked them, but these tags definitely have to be dropped.
>
> > How precise are the locations of the antennas in the BIPT
> dataset? Do we know what the quality of this data is before importing?
>
> The ten or so that I checked were pretty close, within 5 metres.
> One was either very recent, or
> 20 metres off. (BIPT has location 51.151194,3.235139 but there's
> no structure visible there on
> the most recent imagery.)
>
> In any case, we would get higher quality with a manual review
> instead of fully relying on the
> source: we can correct errors when the structure is visible on
> imagery.
>
> > Perhaps my questions sound a bit tough, but I appreciate the
> effort you put into this.
>
> Such is an import discussion. Original Poster has my appreciation
> too :)
>
> > On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 17:46:38 +, Karel Adams
> mailto:fa348...@skynet.be>> wrote:
> > > didn't we
> > > have a rule to map only those features visible in the scenery?
> The BIPT
> > > antennae (sic!) are usually attached to existing structures,
> such as
> > > church spires or GSM masts or so? Of course we map those
> highly visible
> > > carrying structures, but to map the individual antennae seems
> to me like
> > > overdoing things.
>
> Looking at the source data, it's going to be one node for one
> mast, which typically has several
> directional antennas mounted on it. A node per antenna is not
> something I'd like to see either.
>
> Off-topic: when referring to the electrical part, "antennas" is
> actually the most common form. By the way,
> could you maybe start trying to behave more constructive and
> socially acceptable? I believe you can
> do it with some effort.
>
> Kind regards,
> Midgard
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] IBPT antennas

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey,

Supercool initiative! Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to help
out with everything, but you have my support to add those to OSM as well
- it will be a big added value.

Kind regards,
Pietervdvn

On 08.03.20 15:34, Midgard wrote:
> Cool news!
>
> 1) Instead of doing it once, wouldn't it be nicer to keep it updated? 
> Generating a list of changes
>between two versions of the source file would be trivial.
>
> 2) Three meters is way, way, way too little. I opened the data and looked at 
> literally the first
>antenna I saw in OSM, and it was 4.5 meters from BIPT's position. I would 
> consider 25 meters the
>bare minimum.
>
> 3) And even then, just dumping elements in OSM without manual review is not 
> considered best
>practice, but since it's only nodes, things are relatively simple and I 
> won't object. I would
>just like to see that they're not placed too close to any other existing 
> node, but that can be
>checked automatically.
>
> Thanks for discussing before doing!
>
> Kind regards,
> Midgard
>
> Quoting Vucodil via Talk-be (2020-03-08 14:15:26)
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Recently, we got the permission from ibpt.be to use their data in 
>> OpenStreetMap: 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ibpt_belgium_antennas
>>
>> This includes all the antennas (more than 9000) managed by the three 
>> operators (Proximus, Mobistar and Telenet) with the info on who manages 
>> which antennas and their localisation.
>>
>> I wish to import them in a semi-automatic import. But before that, I wish to 
>> have your feedback on the:
>>
>> General workflow 
>>
>> For the workflow, you can find it at the end of the import wiki page. The 
>> main idea is that the antennas to close to existing antennas will be 
>> manually reviewed.
>> What do you think about that? Is it safe enough?
>>
>> Tags to use
>>
>> As there is around 300 antennas currently in Belgium 
>> (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QPC) and considering that this import will 
>> bring more than 9000 antennas, I think the tags of the import should be 
>> carefully chosen. 
>>
>> The tags for the objects related to telecoms are not well defined. Various 
>> sources of information are available (see at the end of this email).
>> If we choose to only map the antenna itself by excluding the support (mast, 
>> tower, roof, ...), it seems to exist two tags:
>>
>> - man_made=antenna 
>> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=antenna#overview)
>>
>> - telecoms=antenna 
>> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=telecom=antenna)
>>
>> the first one being much more used. That's the one that I suggest. You can 
>> see more details on the tagging here: 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ibpt_belgium_antennas#Data_Preparation
>>
>> With the data from IBPT, it make sense to only focus on the antenna itself 
>> and not on the support as we don't have any information on it.
>> In cities, it will usually be on roofs or underground like in tunnels but in 
>> the countryside, it is often on communication towers.
>>
>> Mapping only the antenna enable us to later map more complex things like in 
>> this proposal 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Radio_antennas_mapping_proposal.png 
>>   where I really like the separation between:
>>
>> - antenna
>> - support
>> - station
>>
>> Note that today, most antennas in Belgium are mapped via their support (mast 
>> or tower).
>>
>> What do you think about the tagging that I suggest? Does it make sense ?
>>
>> Vucodil
>>
>> PS: I sent two mails in a week about import. It is a coincidence, I'm not 
>> doing only that!
>>
>> Sources of information: 
>>
>> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dantenna
>> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Telecoms
>> - 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecommunications_tower
>> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast 
>> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcommunications_tower
>> - 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Proposed_features/Key:antenna#Les_antennes_t.C3.A9l.C3.A9com
>> - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-April/001970.html
>>
>> - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-April/001971.html
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: explicit tagging of 'Jaagpaden'

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for all the answers and different viewpoints, they were very
enriching for the discussion.

First of all, it seems that most of you are in favour of tagging them
explicitely somehow or are already doing it, no one is opposed to it -
but there are some practical remarks on how to do it.

It seems like 'designation=towpath'  is what I was searching for to tag
the legality-aspect. I'm still wondering to use 'towpath' or 'jaagpad'
as the value for this tag (as this is very Flanders-specific).

For the historic use of a towpath and the quality of cycling there, I am
inclined to still put a 'towpath=yes' or even better:
'historic:towpath=yes' on it.

As the form of some historic towpaths have diverged from paths to
unclassified roads and all in between, `service=towpath` is indeed not
very suitable tagging. Note that routers will still take other factors
(such as maxspeed and road classification) into account when calculation
a score, so a towpath indication doesn't necessarily mean that it will
be taken at any cost.

I feel that we are getting close to a consensus. Are there further
remarks on what tags exactly to use?


PS: about the Haven-roads and Havengebied-roads - for now I would like
to focus on jaagpaden first as these are most important for our usecase.
If necessary, a new mailing list thread can be started for those.

On 04.03.20 20:35, Steven Clays wrote:
> In Belgium, a towpath is a legal designation (eg.
> designation=towpath), NOT something you can derive really from ground
> truth. Towpaths as suchs do physically not exist anymore: the distance
> between the path and the river is nowadays sometimes more then 50 m,
> the towpath is physically on a dike, or sometimes even perpendicular
> to the river...
>
>
> Op di 3 mrt. 2020 om 21:09 schreef Marc Gemis  <mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>>:
>
> As we map what is on the ground, we do not have to care about
> that,  I would assume. Let someone else fight with the people that
> place the signs. 
>
> m
>
> Op di 3 mrt. 2020 20:10 schreef Steven Clays
> mailto:steven.cl...@gmail.com>>:
>
> To make it more complex, not every signposted towpath in
> Flanders is legally a towpath. Check
> 
> http://www.start2boat.be/vaaropleiding/downloads/reglementen/Bijzondere%20reglementen.pdf
>
> Op di 3 mrt. 2020 om 19:38 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
> mailto:talk-be@openstreetmap.org>>:
>
> Hi,
>
> 'Jaagpaden' are not always paved roads. Often compacted,
> gravel, earthen, grassy, ... roads/tracks and then
> highway=track seems a better choice. Sometimes the only
> thing that's left is just a path. Then the tag
> service=towpath is rather odd. I use description=jaagpad.
> And what about similar roads which usually have the same
> access restrictions but are called 'haven' or
> 'havengebied' instead of 'jaagpad'?
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
>
>
> Op dinsdag 3 maart 2020 16:28:46 CET schreef Pieter Vander
> Vennet  <mailto:pieterv...@posteo.net>>:
>
>
> Hey Marc,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> IMHO all towpaths are indeed peculiar service roads, thus
> 'highway=service' + 'service=towpath'. The wiki even
> mentions explicitly
> that it should be a service road.
>
> The examples you sent are excellent examples where the
> legal signposting
> didn't catch up with the historic usage. These clearly
> used to be
> towpath but they didn't gain the legal recognition of a
> 'jaagpad'.
> Personally, I would tag those with 'service=towpath'
> (reflecting the
> historic usage) but not with 'towpath=yes', but this is
> very subject to
> change. We might even consider `towpath=no` (with a note
> clarifying this
> is legally _not_ a 'jaagpad') or `legal:towpath=no` or
> something similar.
>
> Another thought: if we are about using 'towpath=yes' to
> reflect the
> legal status, I'm doubting that there is no better tag
> scheme for this.
>
>
> Kind regards, Pieter
>
>
> On 03.03.20 16:12, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > I'm fine with explicitly mapping them.
> > Isn't service=towpath strange on a way that is not tagged as
> > highway=service? (but you know that I think they should
> have been
>   

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Cameras - sous-surveillance.net - Brussels

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey Vucodil!

This is awesome!

I've skimmed your code and it looks pretty cool.
One remark: you set a few statusses, such as 'TO_DELETE'... One approach
could be to have some validation rules in JOSM which helps to prevent an
upload of unwanted camera's or statuses. Some examples of extra JOSM
rules can be found here: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Rules

PS: is there a dataset on Bruges as well?

Kind regards and good luck with the project,
Pietervdvn

On 05.03.20 22:36, Vucodil via Talk-be wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Few months ago, I presented in Matrix the project of importing cameras of 
> sous-surveillance.net in OSM : 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/sous-surveillance.net.
> Soon, I will upload a subset of those cameras (only Brussels). If you want to 
> comment my workflow or to check an example of geojson output, be welcome.
>
> - Workflow: 
> https://gitlab.com/vucodil/osm-import-sous-surveillance.net-brussels/-/blob/master/getCameraBxlToAdd.ipynb
>  
> - Geojson example: 
> https://gitlab.com/vucodil/osm-import-sous-surveillance.net-brussels/-/blob/master/example_camerasBxlToAdd.geojson,
>  
>
> The full import may happen in the future if we get more permissions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vucodil
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: explicit tagging of 'Jaagpaden'

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey Marc,

Thanks for your response.

IMHO all towpaths are indeed peculiar service roads, thus
'highway=service' + 'service=towpath'. The wiki even mentions explicitly
that it should be a service road.

The examples you sent are excellent examples where the legal signposting
didn't catch up with the historic usage. These clearly used to be
towpath but they didn't gain the legal recognition of a 'jaagpad'.
Personally, I would tag those with 'service=towpath' (reflecting the
historic usage) but not with 'towpath=yes', but this is very subject to
change. We might even consider `towpath=no` (with a note clarifying this
is legally _not_ a 'jaagpad') or `legal:towpath=no` or something similar.

Another thought: if we are about using 'towpath=yes' to reflect the
legal status, I'm doubting that there is no better tag scheme for this.


Kind regards, Pieter


On 03.03.20 16:12, Marc Gemis wrote:
> I'm fine with explicitly mapping them.
> Isn't service=towpath strange on a way that is not tagged as
> highway=service? (but you know that I think they should have been
> mapped as highway=service in the first place, but this is not the
> case)
>
> So it's meant for all those that are explicitly signed as "Jaagpad"
> and not for any others? So this
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3T0U_uBJxNXHfrgwdztQDQ is not a
> Jaagpad? (a bit further
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.05439739997222=4.4334043=17=photo=cmVJ5z_VXnZqwsdrEK0aHw
> , but that still does not make it a Jaadpad?)
>
> m.
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 2:14 PM Pieter Vander Vennet
>  wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Even though the legal restrictions of 'Jaagpaden' (towpaths in proper 
>> English) is already described in detail on the wiki, it would still be 
>> useful to reflect the special status explicitly, in our case to give a 
>> comfort bonus in cycling route planning but also for historical purposes.
>>
>> For context, a 'jaagpad', 'trekpad' or towing path is a path that used to be 
>> used to (literally) tow boats through the canals, either with manpower or 
>> horsepower and a rope attached to the boat - hence there are never trees 
>> between a towpath.
>>
>> With the rise of cheap and powerful combustion engines, this practice became 
>> disused and towpaths became service roads and cycleways.
>>
>> As stated, these often are excellent and heavily preferred by cyclists. 
>> Normally, they are wide, asphalted, there are very few cars and especially: 
>> there is the very nice scenery of the canal.
>>
>> Therefore, I would propose to introduce tagging in Belgium to tag towpaths.
>>
>>
>> There are two ways to achieve this:
>>
>> - A towpath is typically a specific type of service road, so we can add 
>> `service=towpath`
>>
>> - In the UK, the towpaths are tagged with `towpath=yes`
>>
>> Note that towpaths in Flanders are mostly signposted with an official sign, 
>> even though that this is a bit of a legal remnant of a previous era. 
>> However, it makes it very explicit and thus unambiguous to map.
>>
>> But now, for the serious questions:
>>
>> - what are your thoughts of mapping them somehow? IMHO it is an added value 
>> and I'm quite in favour of them.
>>
>> - What is the best way of mapping them? I'm a bit on the edge of the options 
>> above: `service=towpath` is IMHO semantically the most correct form, as it 
>> indicates that it is a service road originally built for towing. 
>> `towpath=yes` reeks more of the legal status (i.e. having a formal road sign 
>> indicating 'jaagpad'). The latter has the advantage of already being in use 
>> in the UK with over 3500 instances according to taginfo. service=towpath is 
>> not in use at the moment.
>>
>>
>> PS: fun etymological fact: the English verb 'to tow' is derived from the 
>> Dutch word for rope: 'touw'
>>
>> --
>> Met vriendelijke groeten,
>> Pieter Vander Vennet
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] RFC: explicit tagging of 'Jaagpaden'

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hello everyone,

Even though the legal restrictions of 'Jaagpaden' (towpaths in proper
English) is already described in detail on the wiki
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Jaagpad>, it would still be
useful to reflect the special status explicitly, in our case to give a
comfort bonus in cycling route planning but also for historical purposes.

For context, a 'jaagpad', 'trekpad' or towing path is a path that used
to be used to (literally) tow boats through the canals, either with
manpower or horsepower and a rope attached to the boat - hence there are
never trees between a towpath.

With the rise of cheap and powerful combustion engines, this practice
became disused and towpaths became service roads and cycleways.

As stated, these often are excellent and heavily preferred by cyclists.
Normally, they are wide, asphalted, there are very few cars and
especially: there is the very nice scenery of the canal.

Therefore, I would propose to introduce tagging in Belgium to tag towpaths.


There are two ways to achieve this:

- A towpath is typically a specific type of service road, so we can add
`service=towpath`

- In the UK, the towpaths are tagged with `towpath=yes`

Note that towpaths in Flanders are mostly signposted with an official
sign, even though that this is a bit of a legal remnant of a previous
era. However, it makes it very explicit and thus unambiguous to map.

But now, for the serious questions:

- what are your thoughts of mapping them somehow? IMHO it is an added
value and I'm quite in favour of them.

- What is the best way of mapping them? I'm a bit on the edge of the
options above: `service=towpath` is IMHO semantically the most correct
form, as it indicates that it is a service road originally built for
towing. `towpath=yes` reeks more of the legal status (i.e. having a
formal road sign indicating 'jaagpad'). The latter has the advantage of
already being in use in the UK with over 3500 instances according to
taginfo. service=towpath is not in use at the moment.


PS: fun etymological fact: the English verb 'to tow' is derived from the
Dutch word for rope: 'touw'

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fietssnelwegen in Brussel

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Fietserbond notified me that they were still missing, but indeed, they
might simply not yet be realized and/or signposted.

That is probably the reason I was searching for.

On 02.03.20 15:51, Jo wrote:
> All I know is that they use a C instead of an F. But for example F3
> should continue as C3. Do you know any that are already realised? I
> think they are still in the planning stage. 
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 3:41 PM Pieter Vander Vennet
> mailto:pieterv...@posteo.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Today I discovered that the 'Fietssnelwegen' in the Brussels
> region are
> missing: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Rdy
>
> Is there someone who know why this is? I also suspect that they should
> be tagged there slightly differently.
>
>
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] Fietssnelwegen in Brussel

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hi everyone,

Today I discovered that the 'Fietssnelwegen' in the Brussels region are
missing: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Rdy

Is there someone who know why this is? I also suspect that they should
be tagged there slightly differently.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Taggen van laadpalen in ondergrondse parkeergarages ?

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hallo Denis,

Persoonlijk zou ik wél een aparte node voor de laadpalen maken (ééntje
die alle vier groupeert of zelfs ééntje per punt).
Hoewel het een "integraal deel" van de parking is, is het toch een
aparte amenity. Zo kan je ook de automaat, toiletten, ... in de parking
als deel van de parking zien, maar dan wordt het parkingobject zelf
overladen met nogal veel data en wordt het moeilijk om te zoeken ernaar.
En wat als de laadpaal dan te betalen is maar de parking niet? Een
combinatie 'amenity=parking; charging_station=yes; fee=yes; wordt dan
voor interpretatie vatbaar.

Bovendien kan iemand zich door de aparte node dan al een beetje
orienteren waar de laadpalen ongeveer zijn in de parking.

Om het ondergrondse aspect te vatten, kan je de tags 'indoor=yes;
level=-1' toevoegen, eventueel met 'access=customers' als de laadpaal
enkel bereikbaar is voor gebruikers van de parking.

Maar goed, just my two cents - wss hebben andere mensen andere inzichten.

Mvg, Pieter

On 09.02.20 14:27, Denis Verheyden wrote:
> Hallo allen,
>
> Onlangs stuitte ik weer op een onderwerp waar er geen echte conventie
> of goed voorbeeld is: hoe taggen we laadpalen voor elektrische
> voertuigen in  ondergrondse parkeergarages ?
>
> Als voorbeeld wil ik de parkeergarage Tinel in Mechelen nemen, die ik
> een paar maand geleden heb toegevoegd:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7082405515
>
> De meeste basisgegevens heb ik ingevuld, maar hoe tag ik nu de laadpalen ?
> In totaal zijn er 4 plaatsen voor elektrische wagens (op niveau -1), 
> op mijn foto's heb ik weliswaar maar 1 laadpaal en 2 plaatsen afgebeeld:
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/ARJ3YkYVTAs8M94XA
>
> Het lijkt me niet zinnig ze als aparte nodes met tag
> amenity=charging_station te plaatsen, gezien ze integraal onderdeel
> uitmaken van de parkeergarage en niet als losstaande laadpaal staan
> (zoals op gelijkvloerse parkings buiten).
>
> Heeft iemand een bruikbare oplossing zodat het duidelijk is dat er
> laadpalen aanwezig zijn, maar ze niet allemaal individueel op de kaart
> moeten gezet worden ?
> Mogelijk zal het dan iets met een relation worden vermoed ik ?
>
> Groeten,
> Denis
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: removing OpenGeoDB and is_in tags (RFC by 29 Feb 2020)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

About the is_in: oh please, get rid of them.

About the geoDB: clean them up as well, although I am a bit more 
reserved. I don't know openGeoDB, but I feel that it is unmaintainted 
and superseded by the combination of OSM and Wikidata. I feel that using 
a wikidata entry is a more futureproof solution to this: the metadata 
about the place (such as population) can go on wikidata then.


In conclusion: go for it!

Mvg, Pieter

On 05.02.20 20:54, joost schouppe wrote:

I say "go"

Op wo 5 feb. 2020 16:37 schreef Midgard >:


Dear mappers

If you ever touched a place node, chances are you saw it was
cluttered with:
- tags with a "openGeoDB:" prefix and
- "is_in" tags.

I hereby propose a mechanical edit to delete those from all
features in Belgium.
The Overpass query to fetch the data is
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qqa

- The openGeoDB tags date to 2008, when the plan was to keep
populations updated from the openGeoDB
  database. This never happened and probably never will.
  Information about OpenGeoDB on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenGeoDB
  For an example, see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/79382706/history

- The is_in tags are largely obsolete. The administrative
boundaries replace them.
  They're also not uniform in OSM to begin with. Some examples:
  - Beernem:         is_in=Belgie, Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen
  - Sint-Andries: is_in=Brugge,West-Vlaanderen,Belgium,Europe
  - Hoekskensstraat: is_in=Lebbeke, Oost-Vlaanderen
  - Meise: is_in=Vlaams-Brabant,Belgium,Europe
           is_in:continent=Europe
           is_in:country=Belgium
           is_in:province=Flemish Brabant

Why remove them? For data users they create the impression that
this is data they can use.
Mappers may be confused about them and waste time maintaining
them. They are not useful to anyone.

I'd like to collectively make a decision ("go" or "no go") by the
end of the month, 29 February.
Please send in your comments, even if it's just "not sure, maybe
we shouldn't do this"!

Kind regards,
Midgard

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] 17/02: Towards Equal Street Names with Open Data

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey Jo,

Afaik there is no need to create an wikidata for the street.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

On February 4, 2020 12:06:46 PM GMT+01:00, Jo  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I did this for one street in Evere:
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/523050554/history
>
>Took me more than half an hour for a single street (no automation). I
>created a wikidata entry both for the person and for the street itself.
>Things are complicated by the bilingual nature of the city and because this
>street also had an old name.
>
>Is that what we will be doing? Or did I somehow misunderstand?
>
>Polyglot
>
>On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:34 PM Santens Seppe 
>wrote:
>
>> Hi community,
>>
>>
>>
>> Open Knowledge Belgium, OpenStreetMap Belgium and Wikimedia Belgium want
>> to map all the streetnames by gender in Brussels, as a first step to change
>> the imbalance in reality. We need your help on 17/02 to get the OSM data
>> linked to wikidata.
>>
>> Register here to join the mapping effort:
>> https://eventbrite.co.uk/e/towards-equal-street-names-with-open-data-registration-92536026747.
>> And let us know if you can help with the framework.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> more info:
>> https://be.okfn.org/2020/02/03/towards-equal-street-names-with-open-data/
>>
>>
>>
>> Please spread the word!
>>
>> -Twitter: https://twitter.com/OpenKnowledgeBE/status/1224291464496193538
>> -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/2852981998057886/
>> -Eventbrite: http://equalstreetnamesbrussels.eventbrite.co.uk/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seppe
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] Hack Your Future bootcamp: meetup + presentation moment

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hello OpenStreetMapBE, Dries,

In a few weeks, a bootcamp from Hack Your Future is starting - and
they'll build upon OpenStreetMap!

For context: Hack Your Future is a program where refugees learn to code
in 6 months time. When they finish the lessons, a boot camp is
organized: a four week period where the students can enroll and build a
bigger project together - quite similar to an Open Summer of Code
project. This is all organized by Open Knowledge Belgium and paid for by
the Fondation Roi Boaudouin.

Dries, the coordinator of Open Knowledge Belgium wanted to build a
website promoting the 'Paalcampings'/'Aire de bivouac'/'bivouac zones'
and asked me to coach them. Depending on the number of enrolling
students, a second, technically similar project may be set-up as well.

As I will be in Ghent, it would be cool to do a meetup, as this could be
an added value for the students if they want to meet more of the
community (and because it's been a while there was a meetup in Ghent).
Apart from a chance to see the projects they are working on, it is a
nice opportunity to plan the presentation moment. This meetup is *monday
27th of januari, 17:00 - 19:00 in De Krook*. (De Krook closes at 19:00,
we might rebase then to a nearby pub or restaurant)

The last day of the bootcamp, *thursday 13th februari*, an event is
planned. The exact size and timing of the event is still unclear, but
there will be room for (at least) a table dedicated to OpenStreetMap.
More practical details about this event will be shared with you in the
coming week - but already mark the date.

If you have questions or ideas about what we can do, feel free to let me
know.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mappen van paalcampings

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Cool... I've browsed the bivakzone.be-website, a few camp sites require
to send an sms to the owner one day in advance or the day itself - hence
the option for reservation.

On 10.01.20 14:16, Jo wrote:
> Looks good. Usually there is a first come, first served rule. There is
> no way to reserve a spot from 'remote'. When you arrive, you write
> your name in a register.
>
> If the person responsible for the site passes by later that night and
> finds 5 tents and 4 registrations, the tent that wasn't registered and
> the last tent that was registered will have to leave and find another
> spot to camp. (officially, at least, it may depend on the discretion
> of the warden)
>
> Or alternatively, the warden may find that the first one that arrived
> are already there for more than the allowed number of nights.
>
> I think in practice the ones that are too many would simply be asked
> to leave the next morning. Possibly also depending on their mode of
> transport and how far away from home they are. In the case of the ones
> in Meerdaalwoud, you might be told to go to De Kluis and camp there
> for a small fee.
>
> Jo
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:52 PM Pieter Vander Vennet
> mailto:pieterv...@posteo.net>> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is a very funny coincidence... Hack Your Future will do a
> project on paalcampings as well!
> I will send out a general mail with more information about that
> project later today. We are in touch with bivakzones.be
> <http://bivakzones.be> and will be discussing how they can be
> added to OSM, with what tags and if we can use their site as a
> source. More details about that will be following later on.
>
> However, to prepare that project, I would like to have a better
> tagging scheme for this as well (in order to be able to get them
> all at once using overpass).
>
> After consulting the wiki, I do think that having the tags
> *'toursim=camp_site', 'camp_site=basic' and 'backcountry=yes'*
> would be the correct tagging. The first indicates "an area without
> facilities where it is legal to camp with tents". The second one
> is even closer to the the concept of these bivouacs. At last, an
> additional 'motor_vehicles=no' makes it very explicit that cars
> and jeeps are not welcome - even though the 'backcountry=yes'
> already implies this.
>
> IMHO is the key 'impromtu=yes' antithetical to the concept of a
> 'paalkamping' - they indicate an /informal/ place where people
> could rest, e.g. when travelling through the country /with their
> jeep... /This implies both motorized vehicles and 'camping in the
> wild', which is AFAIK illegal in Belgium.
>
> And of course, there is a lot of additional tagging possible as well.
>
> I've written a wiki page with an explanation, links and a proposal
> for tagging. Please read them carefully. If you have extra
> information and tagging that is still missing, feel free to add
> this directly to the wiki page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Bivakzones
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29.12.19 17:47, Guy Vanvuchelen wrote:
>>
>> De bivakzone  Het Vinne in Zoutleeuw heb ik aangepast volgens de
>> info van Jo
>>
>>  
>>
>> Guy Vanvuchelen
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Van:*Jo [mailto:winfi...@gmail.com]
>> *Verzonden:* zondag 29 december 2019 15:53
>> *Aan:* OpenStreetMap Belgium
>> *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mappen van paalcampings
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hallo Karel,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Ik heb een paar jaar geleden deze toegevoegd:
>>
>>  
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222137187/history 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Die is onbereikbaar met de wagen. Ik denk niet dat het feit dat
>> hij op OpenStreetMap staat ervoor zorgt dat hij overrompelt wordt.
>>
>>  
>>
>> In Tielt-Winge is er vorig jaar ook één bijgekomen. Ik heb die
>> wel op Mapillary, maar blijkbaar heb ik 'm nog niet toegevoegd
>> aan OSM.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Jo 
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:38 PM Karel Adams > <mailto:fa348...@skynet.be>> wrote:
>>
>> Na enige aarzeling heb ik, proberenderwijs, de paalcamping
>> Arkadia in
>> Muizen toegevoegd. Zie
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7093111580#map=19/51.00354/4.54221
>>
>> Het zou me helemaal niet verbazen als de initiaftiefnemers
>>   

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mappen van paalcampings

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey everyone,

This is a very funny coincidence... Hack Your Future will do a project
on paalcampings as well!
I will send out a general mail with more information about that project
later today. We are in touch with bivakzones.be and will be discussing
how they can be added to OSM, with what tags and if we can use their
site as a source. More details about that will be following later on.

However, to prepare that project, I would like to have a better tagging
scheme for this as well (in order to be able to get them all at once
using overpass).

After consulting the wiki, I do think that having the tags
*'toursim=camp_site', 'camp_site=basic' and 'backcountry=yes'* would be
the correct tagging. The first indicates "an area without facilities
where it is legal to camp with tents". The second one is even closer to
the the concept of these bivouacs. At last, an additional
'motor_vehicles=no' makes it very explicit that cars and jeeps are not
welcome - even though the 'backcountry=yes' already implies this.

IMHO is the key 'impromtu=yes' antithetical to the concept of a
'paalkamping' - they indicate an /informal/ place where people could
rest, e.g. when travelling through the country /with their jeep... /This
implies both motorized vehicles and 'camping in the wild', which is
AFAIK illegal in Belgium.

And of course, there is a lot of additional tagging possible as well.

I've written a wiki page with an explanation, links and a proposal for
tagging. Please read them carefully. If you have extra information and
tagging that is still missing, feel free to add this directly to the
wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Bivakzones





On 29.12.19 17:47, Guy Vanvuchelen wrote:
>
> De bivakzone  Het Vinne in Zoutleeuw heb ik aangepast volgens de info
> van Jo
>
>  
>
> Guy Vanvuchelen
>
>  
>
> *Van:*Jo [mailto:winfi...@gmail.com]
> *Verzonden:* zondag 29 december 2019 15:53
> *Aan:* OpenStreetMap Belgium
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mappen van paalcampings
>
>  
>
> Hallo Karel,
>
>  
>
> Ik heb een paar jaar geleden deze toegevoegd:
>
>  
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222137187/history 
>
>  
>
> Die is onbereikbaar met de wagen. Ik denk niet dat het feit dat hij op
> OpenStreetMap staat ervoor zorgt dat hij overrompelt wordt.
>
>  
>
> In Tielt-Winge is er vorig jaar ook één bijgekomen. Ik heb die wel op
> Mapillary, maar blijkbaar heb ik 'm nog niet toegevoegd aan OSM.
>
>  
>
> Jo 
>
>  
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:38 PM Karel Adams  <mailto:fa348...@skynet.be>> wrote:
>
> Na enige aarzeling heb ik, proberenderwijs, de paalcamping Arkadia in
> Muizen toegevoegd. Zie
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7093111580#map=19/51.00354/4.54221
>
> Het zou me helemaal niet verbazen als de initiaftiefnemers daarmee
> allesbehalve gelukikig waren, ik heb dan ook geschreven om een en
> ander
> toe te lichten, en om goedkeuring te vragen. Want dit soort
> initiatieven
> houdt graag een laag profiel, het allerlaatste dat men daar wil is
> dat
> er iemand met een 4x4-superdeluxekampeerbus komt binnengetuft. En dat
> houd ik best voor mogelijk, allicht zal er wel iemand campinggidsen
> opmaken op basis van overpassqueries.
>
> Misschien toch beter maar terug verwijderen? Of welke tags zouden er
> kunnen toegevoegd worden om het eigen karakter van zo'n paalcamping
> duidelijk over te brengen? Iets van "access=???" of
> "regulations=strict"?
>
> Over het concept van paalcampings kan men meer lezen op o.a.
> http://www.bivakzone.be/
>
> Karel
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey everyone,

After some silence in this thread, I would like to close it with a small
wrap-up.

As the consensus is clear, I've created a wiki page describing the tag
in detail
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycle_network%3Dcycle_highway>.
Feel free to update, add or correct on this page. Additionally, I've
added links and updated tagging on a few wiki pages where I encountered
the old tagging.


Secondly, I would wish to thank Polyglot for his extensive work on the
mapping of these cycle networks and to already execute the changes
described here!

Thirdly, I would like to thank everyone involved for all the ideas and
the constructive way everything was discussed!

Kind regards & best wishes for 2020,
Pietervdvn



On 26.12.19 11:16, EeBie wrote:
> I am checking  some cycling highways with status proposed and keep the
> parts that are released as usable (Befietsbaar) in the relation and
> delete the status proposed to make them visible and usable in
> routeplanners.
> I experienced that the information on the website Fietssnelwegen.be is
> not 100% correct. There are parts released where no bike access is
> allowed. I leave these parts out and also the parts over unpaved paths
> that are difficult for usual bikes.
>
> Eebie
>
> Op 25/12/19 om 13:14 schreef joost schouppe:
>> Hi Jo,
>>
>> I think that's the right thing to do, thank you. 
>>
>> What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is
>> unfinished, but large sections of them are, then I would think the
>> finished parts do deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about
>> this briefly before, maybe someone here has an idea how to split up
>> the route (say F3) in three types of subrelations :
>>
>> - usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
>> - usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
>> - unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)
>>
>> As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't
>> belong in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked.
>> For example, in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official
>> detour that will be in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind
>> of situation needs to ge in a fourth type...
>>
>> Joost
>>
>> Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo > <mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>>:
>>
>> All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed
>> the remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not
>> possible to use them today to get from the start till the end,
>> they are marked as state=proposed.
>>
>> Jo
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>> ___________
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

On 26.12.19 11:16, EeBie wrote:
> I am checking  some cycling highways with status proposed and keep the
> parts that are released as usable (Befietsbaar) in the relation and
> delete the status proposed to make them visible and usable in
> routeplanners.
> I experienced that the information on the website Fietssnelwegen.be is
> not 100% correct. There are parts released where no bike access is
> allowed. I leave these parts out and also the parts over unpaved paths
> that are difficult for usual bikes.
>
> Eebie
>
> Op 25/12/19 om 13:14 schreef joost schouppe:
>> Hi Jo,
>>
>> I think that's the right thing to do, thank you. 
>>
>> What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is
>> unfinished, but large sections of them are, then I would think the
>> finished parts do deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about
>> this briefly before, maybe someone here has an idea how to split up
>> the route (say F3) in three types of subrelations :
>>
>> - usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
>> - usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
>> - unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)
>>
>> As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't
>> belong in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked.
>> For example, in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official
>> detour that will be in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind
>> of situation needs to ge in a fourth type...
>>
>> Joost
>>
>> Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo > <mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>>:
>>
>> All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed
>> the remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not
>> possible to use them today to get from the start till the end,
>> they are marked as state=proposed.
>>
>> Jo
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>> _______
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Nice! Good to hear that!

On 11.12.19 10:32, Lionel Giard wrote:
> To answer Joost question about relevance in other regions : yes it is
> relevant. Wallonia recently started to plan and implement these "cycle
> highway" to reach Brussels from multiple different locations (with
> protected cycleway along motorway, national road or railway). They
> want to connect and continue some of the existing cycle highway in
> Flanders (like the F20 near Halle and go further to Tubize...). 
> That would definitely be a belgian thing, and not only flanders. ^_^
>
> Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 à 10:12, Marc Gemis  <mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> > Tagging scheme
> >
> > I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as
> cycle_network normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?)
> of them are already tagged, we could simply update the tagging all
> at once.  I'll do that next week, unless a better proposal or good
> reason not to is raised.
>
> to be honest I find "network" strange in the context of a single
> cycle_highway. All cycle_highways together form a network, but a
> single one not.
> We do not map the E 19 motorway as car_network:BE:motorway, but we do
> have a relation for all parts of the E 19 in a route-relation (I
> think, OSM website was soo slow yesterday when I tried to access the
> page on E-motorways).
>
> Is this cycle_network value OK with the inventors of that tag ? Wasn't
> it invented recently to distinguish cycle networks from local cycle
> routes ?
>
> In conclusion: I would prefer another way to tag cycle highways
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey Marc,

For clarity, the idea is to create a relation which represents a cycle
highway, such as (for example) this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10139557
We will _not_ add extra tags on the individual way segments.

I had a quick look to the E40-motorway somewhere. On that, there is a
similar relation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/84338#map=7/50.434/5.673

Note that this similar relation has `network=e-road`-tag.

So, all in all, I do think that we are talking about exactly the same.

Mvg, Pieter

On 11.12.19 10:11, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> Tagging scheme
>>
>> I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network 
>> normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already 
>> tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once.  I'll do that next 
>> week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised.
> to be honest I find "network" strange in the context of a single
> cycle_highway. All cycle_highways together form a network, but a
> single one not.
> We do not map the E 19 motorway as car_network:BE:motorway, but we do
> have a relation for all parts of the E 19 in a route-relation (I
> think, OSM website was soo slow yesterday when I tried to access the
> page on E-motorways).
>
> Is this cycle_network value OK with the inventors of that tag ? Wasn't
> it invented recently to distinguish cycle networks from local cycle
> routes ?
>
> In conclusion: I would prefer another way to tag cycle highways
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

f Veltem, north of the
> railway it generally follows.
>
> Most cycle highways are not yet visible in the field. The signs
> aren't  placed yet. For example F203 from Sterrebeek to
> Sint-Stevens-Woluwe. It passes through Kraainem over 2 cycleways of
> 50cm, with no separation to motorized traffic that is allowed to go at
> 70km/h there. Then it goes through the center with lots of crossings.
> This is a bit odd, as there is the possibility to pass through
> Molenstraat, wich is a lot safer and has a far better experience for
> the cyclist.
>
> The alternative route relations I was creating, are meant to disappear
> after a few years, but that point, I might be tempted to keep it, even
> when the official instances decide to keep the less suitable itinerary.
>
> One general problem with the cycle highways, today, is that it's next
> to impossible to apply 'ground truth'  to them, except if we would
> only map the parts that are actually already finished and marked in
> the field.
>
> Those are my thoughts on the subject. If I find some more time, I
> might continue mapping the official ones, with the projected parts,
> like I did it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history
>
> But for longer stretches. I have no idea if they are planning to add
> those dedicated cycleways in the next 2 years, or in the next 15 years
> though.
>
> For the ones that I audited over the past year, there are many
> pictures on Mapillary.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Pieter Vander Vennet
> mailto:pieterv...@posteo.net>> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner which takes
> 'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to have some uniform
> tagging into place for this.
>
> Some of them are already tagged with `cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`,
> which
> sounds very Flemish.
>
> I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing fietssnelwegen, but
> would like to document them on the wiki and to have some more thought
> put into them. First of all, the dutch term is something very
> inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps "cycle_highway" is a
> better
> fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with "BE:". Thirdly,
>     OSM tags
> are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is not.
>
> Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially looking looking
> forward to
> input from polyglot who is very familiar with them.
>
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hello everyone,

As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner which takes
'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to have some uniform
tagging into place for this.

Some of them are already tagged with `cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`, which
sounds very Flemish.

I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing fietssnelwegen, but
would like to document them on the wiki and to have some more thought
put into them. First of all, the dutch term is something very
inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps "cycle_highway" is a better
fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with "BE:". Thirdly, OSM tags
are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is not.

Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially looking looking forward to
input from polyglot who is very familiar with them.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] Encrypted Message

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hallo allemaal,

Fouten aankaarten mag en is zelfs aangemoedigd, maar we moeten dan ook
wat respect hebben voor elkaar als persoon "achter de tekst".

Zelf hanteer ik volgende methode:

- Een klein foutje pas ik direct aan. Bv: iets dat een duidelijke
vergissing is, iets dat is veranderd ondertussen of iets dat vrij oud is

- Indien ik merk dat een persoon steeds éénzelfde soort fout maakt (en
als het nuttig lijkt om die te corrigeren), dan stuur ik die een
*persoonlijk* berichtje, liefst in de vorm van "/hey, het is mij
opgevallen dat XYZ. Zelf dacht ik dat dit ABC zou moeten zijn. Zou het
kunnen dat ...? Graag hoor ik een berichtje terug". /Dit wordt meestal
beantwoord met een "/ahja, goed gezien"/ of "/nee, het zit anders. Er is
ook nog DEF"/

- Indien ik niet goed weet wat met een fout te doen, dan gooi ik dit
eens in de chat of kan dit ook op de mailinglijst, maar dan hoeft er
*geen naam genoemd* te worden. Zo voelt niemand zich geviseerd. Eens er
consensus is over de tagging, kunnen we verder door te proberen om de
persoon ik kwestie te contacteren - opnieuw bij voorkeur persoonlijk en
op een blame-avoiding manier.

Iedereen maakt inderdaad "fouten" (en ik ga hier opzettelijk /niet/
ingaan op wat fouten zouden kunnen zijn). Daar is niets mis mee.
Iedereen op deze mailinglijst heeft ongetwijfeld honderden "fouten"
gemaakt. Ook ikzelf. En ook ik ben al meerdere keren aangesproken op
taggingfouten, slordigheden en onoverzichtelijkheden - gisteren nog
bijvoorbeeld. Daar probeer ik dan in de toekomst rekening mee te houden
of ik corrigeer mijn fout wanneer ik tijd heb - en ja, soms vergeet ik
dat ook wel eens en herval ik. Ook ik heb al enkele keren iemand
aangesproken, meestal via een changeset comment; wat relatief
persoonlijke communicatie is - want enkel betrokkenen bekijken deze en
krijgen een email hieromtrent.

Op die manier voelt iedereen zich *veilig bij het krijgen van feedback.*
Dit is essentieel voor een gezonde (online) community. Zo kan iedereen
groeien, in het bijzonder kersverse contributors, waar ongeveer 30% een
"fout" maakt tijdens de eerste edit en daar feedback op ontvangt. Eerder
onderzoek heeft trouwens aangegeven dat deze feedback vaak erg
geapprecieerd en zelf aanmoedigend werkt, toch als die goed wordt verwoord.

Wanneer men publiek fouten gaat bekendmaken, krijgt men vaak een heel
andere reactie - vaak een erg defensieve reactie, in de zin van
"/anderen maken nog meer fouten", "//het zijn oude koeien die we uit de
sloot halen", "jij doet het nog slechter", "waar zijn we mee bezig"/ of
zelf rechtaan persoonlijke verwijten. Dit is erg toxisch en hét recept
om contributors uit te branden of zelfs weg te houden. Dit is dan ook de
context waar "/wie zonder zonde is, werpe de eerste steen" /vandaan kwam
- al kan dat wellicht gevoeld hebben als een steen die werd teruggeworpen.

Om af te sluiten: we zijn hier om van elkaar te leren en om samen de
beste wereldkaart te maken.
En al verschillen de meningen regelmatig eens van elkaar, een goeie
technische discussie belicht dan net alle perspectieven en is dan een
gigantische meerwaarde - tenminste, als er op de bal gespeeld wordt en
niet op de man.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet


On 18.11.19 22:12, Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote:
> Beste s8evq
>
> En heb je ondertussen al leren lezen?
> "This page shows issues on elements that were last modified by
> 'StijnRR'. This doesn't means that this user is responsible for all
> these issues."
> Als wat ik gedaan heb, 'not done' is. Wat is jouw valselijke
> beschuldiging dan?
>
> Je hebt al snel meer dan 500 issues op je naam als je al wat
> editeerjaren achter de rug hebt. Er zitten inderdaad nog massa's
> fouten in OSM (als je alles waar osmose over klaagt al fouten kan
> noemen). Ik heb er al veel opgelost. Soms ben ik zelfs verplicht om ze
> op te lossen omdat JOSM anders weigert te uploaden. Maar ik kan
> onmogelijk alles overal rechttrekken. Daarvoor is mijn leven te kort.
> Ik maak zelf ongetwijfeld ook fouten, maar de verhouding edits/fouten
> ligt bij een aantal mappers redelijk scheef. Terwijl er genoeg andere
> mappers zijn die bewijzen dat het anders kan.
> En het aankaarten van (andermans) fouten op deze mailinglist kan
> nuttig zijn voor iedereen. We kunnen allemaal nog wel iets van elkaar
> en van elkaars fouten leren. En ik zou hier alles kunnen anonimiseren,
> maar iedereen kan toch in osm terugvinden wie wat gedaan heeft.
>
> Een aansluitend vraagje: heeft het nog zin om iemand te wijzen op
> fouten die 2, 3, 4, ... jaren geleden zijn gemaakt? Wat doen jullie?
>
> StijnRR
>
>
> Op maandag 4 november 2019 19:27:10 CET schreef s8evq
> :
>
>
> Dag Stijn,
>
> Wie zonder zonde is werpe de eerste steen:
> http://osmose.openstreetm

Re: [OSM-talk-be] fietsstraten in Mechelen

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey Allemaal,

@Tim: inderdaad, de reply was enkel naar jou en niet naar de lijst, bij
deze is dit aangepast.

De maximumsnelheid 30 is toegevoegd op de cyclestreets, behalve waar er
al een 'maxspeed=20' stond. ik heb hierbij eerst over het hoofd gezien
dat sommige woonerven géén expliciete maxspeed=20 hadden (en dus een
foutieve maxspeed 30 kregen), dit heb ik ook nog net aangepast.

@iedereen: ik heb met josm alle straten (dus niet de pedestrian streets)
gemarkeerd als cyclestreet, een dubbelcheck wordt geapprecieerd.

Mvg, Pieter


On 13.11.19 08:40, Tim Couwelier wrote:
> Pieter, ik denk dat je de rest niet in kopie had, maar ik checkte even.
>
> Je hebt geen foute snelheidsbeperkingen meer, maar je het omgekeerd
> ook niet overal de bijkomende snelheidsbeperking 30 km/u mee opgenomen.
>
> Op di 12 nov. 2019 om 22:55 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet
> mailto:pieterv...@posteo.net>>:
>
> Heyhey allemaal,
>
> Ik heb eventjes tijd gevonden om de binnenstad als
> 'cyclestreet=yes' aan te duiden, al kan het geen kwaad dat iemand
> dit eens nakijkt (of nog beter: eens ter plaatse gaat gaan kijken).
>
> De changeset vindt je hier:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76983121
>
> Mvg, Pieter
>
> On 29.10.19 10:13, Tim Couwelier wrote:
>> Een 'fietszone' is niet meer dan een fietsstraat een 'zonale
>> geldigheid' gegeven.
>> In geval van overlap lijkt me de meest strikte bepaling gelding.
>>
>> Inhaalverbod op fietsers dus, maar met de maximumsnelheid op 20 km/u.
>> cyclestreet = yes en highway = living_street ?
>>
>>
>> Er zullen m.i. nog een aantal gemeentes tegen de lamp lopen, met
>> betrekking tot de regel dat er op elk punt _*maximaal 3 geldende
>> zonale beperkingen*_ mogen optreden.
>> Daarbij denk ik aan:
>> - Zones 30
>> - Zones parkeerverbod
>> - Zones tonnagebeperking
>> - Fietszones
>> - ...
>>
>> Zeker in centra is combinatie 'zone 30' / tonnagebeperking /
>> parkeerreglementering / fietszone niet ondenkbaar.
>>
>> Het issue is blijkbaar ook al voorgelegd:
>> http://docs.vlaamsparlement.be/pfile?id=1486490
>>
>>
>>
>> Op di 29 okt. 2019 om 10:01 schreef Santens Seppe
>>  <mailto:seppe.sant...@stad.gent>:
>>
>> Weet iemand wat dit betekent voor bestaande woonerven?
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Van:*joost schouppe [mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>]
>> *Verzonden:* maandag 28 oktober 2019 17:55
>> *Aan:* OpenStreetMap Belgium
>> *Onderwerp:* [OSM-talk-be] fietsstraten in Mechelen
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hoi,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Mappers in Mechelen, een klein projectje: de stad heeft het
>> gehele centrum aangeduid als "fietsstraten". Zie:
>> https://www.mechelen.be/fietszone
>>
>>  
>>
>> De tagging wordt hier uitgelegd:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cyclestreet#Belgium
>>
>>  
>>
>> Aangezien echt het hele gebied dus maximumsnelheid 30 en
>> cyclestreet=yes krijgt, is het een relatief eenvoudige edit.
>> Anderzijds is het wel gemakkelijk om hierbij fouten te maken
>> (bijvoorbeeld per ongeluk ook de huizen aan te duiden als
>> cyclestreet ofzo, ik vind het niet uit). Dus vraag gerust
>> live hulp via Riot:
>> https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osmbe:matrix.org
>> <https://riot.im/app/#/room/%23osmbe:matrix.org>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Joost Schouppe
>>
>> OpenStreetMap
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
>>     <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Pieter Vander Vennet
>
-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

<>___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] ordering channels in the Community Index

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Exactly the order I'd propose as well

On August 30, 2019 9:41:40 AM GMT+02:00, joost schouppe 
 wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The ID editor (not JOSM unfortunately) tries to link mappers to local
>communities by showing them after each save. Until now, the list was
>ordered by a global setting. Since a few days, they can be ordered
>based on
>inputs from the local community. I'd like to do that, but I'd like to
>refer
>to some public discussion about what we want to show.
>We also use the index for this page, so we would be changing the order
>there as well: https://openstreetmap.be/en/contact.html
>
>I would suggest this ordering:
>riot: because that's where most action is at
>meetup: because that allows you to easily stay up to date about OSM
>events
>in in Belgium
>talk-be: historically our main channel, and still the best place to
>have
>more complicated discussions
>forum: easy to use for some, and does have some activity
>irc: not really a separate channel, but a way to reach the riot
>channels.
>Used by only a few people, but really easy to use for those who already
>use
>irc
>twitter: more for outreach than for communicating, but still useful
>facebook: we're only there because we felt we had to :)
>
>Any comments?
>
>-- 
>Joost Schouppe
>OpenStreetMap  |
>Twitter  | LinkedIn
> | Meetup
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Dodentocht

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey,

Well, the tileservers were slow for everyone, globally at that time. I
don't know how much pageviews that the dodentocht generated, but osm.org
should have been able to handle that just fine. OTOH, it happens quite
often that osm.org is slow or unreliable. Not a big deal for us mappers
(as long as we can edit ;p ) but not really what I'd want for a website
I do care about.

That being said, Joost said the right thing. Either contact Jonathan or
go with a commercial provider - they are quite cheap and most have a
generous free tier. Or mix a few providers.

PS: welcome to the mailing list!


Mvg,

Pieter

On 19.08.19 12:57, joost schouppe wrote:
> Another positive thing: they did attribution right :)
>
> But using the OpenStreetMap.org tiles for a big production website is
> not right. They are financed by the community for mostly internal use.
> Larger websites using them run the risk of being blocked. Maybe the
> site hit some rate limitations, or maybe it was just a bad day.
> The Belgian tile server can handle quite a bit of server load, but
> also come without guarantees. You could get in touch with Jonathan
> from geo-6, to analyse if our server can handle the load. My guess is
> it probably would!
> Of course, if you want real guarantees, you should go with a
> commercial solution or host tiles yourself (see for example
> https://switch2osm.org/providers/).
>
> Op za 17 aug. 2019 om 20:05 schreef rodeo .be  >:
>
> Hey all,
>
> first message to this mailing list !
>
> Last week I supported for some friends in the Dodentocht (a 100km
> walk around Bornem).
> Positive thing: the organisation uses openstreetmap in their
> follow tool: https://tracking.dodentocht.be
> Negative thing: the maps were very slow (background not loading,
> or slowly etc) probably due to the high local demand.
>
> The organisers used Leaflet to load the maps. I know we have a
> dedicated server in Belgium (tile.osm.be ) but
> that server was not used.
>
> What could we do to avoid this "slow loading" in case of future
> events in Belgium?
>
> Kind regards
> Maarten
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap
>  | Twitter
>  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
> 
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Cool collection of bridges (except #2). I too think that if its not dug,
it's not a tunnel.

I have another cool example, not from belgium though:
https://www.google.be/maps/@45.5067122,6.6792676,3a,75y,267.08h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJwtCeCLHlLxMPnVB_ZYdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl

This view is on a bridge (over a small valley) which acts as ski piste (in
winter), and continues through a building (which has a ski piste on top).

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet


Op ma 27 mei 2019 om 22:44 schreef GeDeOn . :

> Hi Stijn and all
>
> In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in
> mountain, under a river, ...
>
> Otherwise I would think of a viaduct.
>
> In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel.
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
> Pierre
>
>
>
> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
>
>  Message d'origine 
> De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be 
> Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00)
> À : OpenStreetMap Belgium 
> Cc : Stijn Rombauts 
> Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
>
> Hi,
>
> 1. This is a bridge: no doubt.
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough.
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an
> embankment enough reason to make it a bridge?
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> 4. This one looks more like a bridge:
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge?
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> 6. And if it gets shorter?
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> 7. And this?
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on a
> bridge? Or above a tunnel?
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> 9. And if you turn around:
>
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> I am curious about your opinion...
> But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How
> should they be mapped? That's the question.
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] join us at State of the Map

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Ben and I will be joining too.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet


Op vr 24 mei 2019 om 17:39 schreef joost schouppe :

> Talking about money: now is the time to buy your tickets:
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2019/05/24/sotm-2019-ticket-sales-opened/
> Early bird community tickets are just 75 euro, which is probably less than
> the cost for the food you'll be getting during the event.
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Relations: wanneer? waarom?

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hallo,

Zonder naar de data te kijken: iD maakt idd makkelijk een multipolygon van
een area als één van de zijkanten geknipt wordt bv om een pad door een
oppervlakte te leggen (denk bv aan building_passages, waar de weg door het
gebouw geknipt wordt en het gebouw vaak ook).

Joinen kan vaak door beide ways te selecteren en op de 'C' toets te duwen.
Soms smijt ik alle tags van één van de wegen om dan te joinen, gaat lekker
snel.

En als je eens een hopeloos complex voorbeeldje van véél multipolygonen
wilt zien: de verschillende oppervlakten in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9118029#map=18/51.15554/3.26831

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet


Op ma 20 mei 2019 om 11:46 schreef joost schouppe :

> Ik ben in Portugal eens een dorp tegengekomen waar alle gebouwen volgens
> die logica gemapped waren. Vond ik toch wel heel lastig te bewerken.
>
> Veel van dit soort situaties worden veroorzaakt door ID (de web-editor).
> Als je daar een bestaand vlak "verknipt", wordt er automatisch een relatie
> van gemaakt, ook als dat aan het einde van je bewerking niet meer nodig zou
> blijken.
>
> Als algemene regels zou ik zeggen:
> - als je duidelijk ziet dat de situatie "per ongeluk" complex is geworden,
> dan kan je het gerust terugdraaien
> - als je ziet dat een "complexe" stijl eens uitzonderlijk in een verder
> "simpel" en eerder leeg gebied gebruikt wordt, dan kan je vereenvoudigen.
> Anders loop je het risico dat nieuwe mappers het zien, denken dat het zo
> hoort en het verder overnemen
> - als je ziet dat het in dat gebied toch wel af en toe gebruikt wordt, dan
> kan je beter eens met de mapper contact opnemen en je bedenkingen delen.
> Eventueel kan je ook contact opnemen met de lokale community (vaak kan je
> die via https://community.osm.be/ vinden). Bepaalde stijlen van hoe
> precies iets in kaart brengen op grote schaal zonder discussie toepassen,
> wordt nogal gemakkelijk als vandalisme beschouwd. En zelfs als er een
> akkoord over zou zijn, ben je toch nog altijd verondersteld voorzichtig en
> stap voor stap te werk te gaan. Met andere woorden: je bent alvast goed
> bezig met op voorhand deze vraag te stellen.
>
> Op za 4 mei 2019 om 19:29 schreef Wouter Hamelinck <
> wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>:
>
>> De ene weg is ook deel van relatie 3502263 en de andere niet. De
>> bedoeling is hier volgens mij om een stukje grens als gemeenschappelijk te
>> forceren. Niet hoe ik het zou doen (ik zou gewoon twee aparte polygonen
>> tekenen met gemeenschappelijke nodes), maar ik kan de logica volgen.
>>
>> Wouter
>>
>> On Sat, 4 May 2019, 19:10 Karel Adams,  wrote:
>>
>>> Een typisch voorbeeld, dat me ergert omdat ik het niet begrijp:
>>>
>>> Relation 3904284 is opgebouwd uit ways 293877809 en 293877845. Ik zie
>>> tussen de beide ways geen verschil. Is er enige reden om dit zo te
>>> behouden? Ik zou al de extra tags van de relatie overbrengen naar een
>>> van de ways, en dan de andere way ermee "joinen". Simpeler voor de
>>> mappers én voor de database.
>>>
>>> Meer algemeen: regelmatig kom ik zulke toestanden tegen, waar er zonder
>>> enige (voor mij zichtbare) reden met relations geknutseld wordt. Zie ik
>>> het nu te simpel of zien sommige andere mappers het te ingewikkeld?
>>>
>>> Dank,
>>>
>>> Karel
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] Wikipedia editathon: search for coaches (and participants)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hi Everyone,

Civic Labs Brussels is hosting a Wikipedia-editathon, with a focus on
articles about women (because men are described significantly more).

The evening itself (29th january) will be the editathon. Edits will be made
in small groups (of about 20ppl), with a coach to help then.

We are however *searching those coaches. *If you want to coach, you can
participate in the training session the 15th of january (starting at 18:15,
in BeCentral - above Brussels Central Station). So if you ever wanted to
get started with Wikipedia, this is your chance!

For more information, contact ma...@hackyourfuture.be

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Lijst van dorpen/gemeenten/steden naargelang grootte/belang

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Westtoer zat met een gelijkaardig probleem - al hebben zij enkel
(West-)Vlaanderen nodig.


Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet


Op zo 30 dec. 2018 om 19:28 schreef Karel Adams :

> Dankjewel, Marc. Voor mijn concrete situatie is het onderscheid tussen
> Brussel, Parijs, Madrid nog niet zo relevant. Maar uw voorbeeld van "een
> localiteit met 5000 inwoners" is dat des te meer: inderdaad valt zo een
> dorp/gemeente/stad hier in het superdichtbevolkte Vlaanderen amper op,
> maar elders kan/zal dat heel anders zijn, zelfs binnen Europa. Laat
> staan in Siberië, of zo, daar zouden 500 inwoners al meer in het oog
> vallen... En als ze er zelfs voor de "officiële" renderer nog niet uit
> zijn, dan kan ik er inderdaad beter niet proberen mijn tanden op te
> breken :)
>
> Vriendelijke groet,
>
> Karel
>
> On 30/12/2018 18:13, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > Voor mij lijkt Joost's vraag relevant aangezien Brussel misschien wel
> > een grote stad is naar Belgische normen, maar klein is in vergelijking
> > met Londen, Parijs of Madrid.
> >
> > Verder is een plaats met 5000 inwoners misschien niet relevant in
> > Vlaanderen, maar in een gebied met lage bevolkingsdichtheid (Ik denk
> > bv. aan Zweden of Wales) wel. Dit is een probleem dat ze bij de
> > default kaartstijl op osm.org ook nog niet hebben kunnen oplossen.
> >
> > m.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 6:31 AM Karel Adams  wrote:
> >> Europa.
> >>
> >> Maar wat is daarvan de relevantie?
> >>
> >> KA
> >>
> >> On 25/12/2018 21:52, joost schouppe wrote:
> >>
> >> Wat is de scope van je project? Vlaanderen, België, de wereld?
> >>
> >> Op ma 24 dec. 2018 11:52 schreef Karel Adams  >>> (ik denk dat ik dit punt reeds eerder aankaartte, maar heb nog steeds
> >>> geen oplossing, het blijft dus een probleem)
> >>>
> >>> Voor een eigen "moving-map" applicatie (waarover verder geen discussie
> >>> aub, want daarover gaat het niet) wil ik graag een lijst van
> >>> steden/dorpen/gemeenten vanuit openstreetmap, mèt indicatie van
> >>> omvang/belang/grootte.
> >>>
> >>> Het idee is dat ik een buitengemeente zoals (om maar iets te zeggen)
> >>> Wakkerzeel niet wil weergeven als ik mijn eigen dorp van Haacht
> weergeef
> >>> in een omgeving van 100 kilometer, maar wel in een omgeving van 10
> >>> kilometer.
> >>>
> >>> Maar hoe krijg ik uit OSM een indicatie van de grootte/belang van een
> >>> "localiteit"? "Aantal inwoners" gaat een eind de richting uit, maar is
> >>> lang niet overal ingevuld. "admin_level" lijkt veelbelovend, maar geeft
> >>> problemen met grotere steden, die enerzijds gemapt zijn als node maar
> >>> dan zonder admin_level, en anderszijds als "boundary", veelal een
> >>> "relation". En inderdaad lijkt die "admin_level" bedoeld te zijn om de
> >>> grenzen af te bakenen, niet om de gemeente te categoriseren.
> >>>
> >>> Kortom, wat ik wil bereiken is een lijstje zoals hieronder (met telkens
> >>> ook lengtegraad en breedtegraad erbij, maar dat haal ik wel uit
> >>> Overpass, die kan ik tegenwoordig query'en met mijn ogen dicht :) ),
> hoe
> >>> kom ik daaraan?
> >>>
> >>> Mechelengrote stad
> >>>
> >>> Leuven grote stad
> >>>
> >>> Lierminder grote stad
> >>>
> >>> Aarschotminder grote stad
> >>>
> >>> Haachtgemeente
> >>>
> >>> Wakkerzeeldeelgemeente
> >>>
> >>> Brusselzeer grote stad
> >>>
> >>> Antwerpenzeer grote stad, mét parking :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Talk-be mailing list
> >>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-be mailing list
> >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-be mailing list
> >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> > ___
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Next OSM Arlon meetup Monday 22 October / Prochaine rencontre OSM Arlon lundi 22 octobre

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Have a good meeting. Arlon is the other side of the country for me, so it
is a bit too far. Have fun!

On Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 17:12 Julien Minet  wrote:

> Hello!/Bonjour!
>
> The next OpenStreetMap Arlon meetup is scheduled on Monday 22th of
> October, 19h30. Everyone welcome, from the perfect beginner to the
> experienced mapper!  All infos and subscription here:
> https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/events/255506828/?isFirstPublish=true.
>
> 
> La prochaine rencontre des contributeurs d'OpenStreetMap d'Arlon et
> d'ailleurs aura lieu le lundi 22 octobre à 19h30. Tout le monde intéressé
> par OSM est le bienvenu, du parfait débutant au cartographe expérimenté.
> N'hésitez pas à venir si vous êtes juste intrigué par le projet
> OpenStreetMap et la cartographie participative. Toutes les infos et
> inscription sur
> https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/events/255506828/?isFirstPublish=true.
> Nous nous rencontrerons cette fois au Tennis Club Garissart à Weyler.
>
> Happy mapping/Bonne cartographie!
>
> Julien Minet
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] ING is using OpenStreetMap

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Cool to know that! One step at a time, OSM is winning.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet


Op do 23 aug. 2018 om 08:45 schreef OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com>:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I incidentally found this.
>
>
>
> Thanks to GDPR, we now know that ING is using OpenStreetMap internally:
>
> - "ING also collects data by consulting external sources. These may be (…)
> OpenStreetMap and other search engines in connection with marketing" [1]
>
> - "Some specific personal data may be shared with service providers,
> including (…) OpenStreetMap in the context of marketing" [2]
>
>
>
> Not yet for their branch locator [3], but it's interesting to note already.
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.ing.be/SiteCollectionDocuments/GeneralRegulationsNewEN.pdf
>
> [2] https://www.ing.be/Assets/Documents/PrivacyStatementEN.pdf
>
> [3] https://branches.ing.be/branches
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] streetname changes (and a community to-do list)

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

All sounds great to me, although it would be usefull to add start_dates to
them to keep track of this history; one day it'll be usefull to some
people; I'm sure of that - one of the oSoc teams here could even use
startdates of each municipality (If they find it somewhere, I might add
them to OSM).


Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

2018-07-24 11:01 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :

> Hi,
>
> Most of the work on street names has been done already, which you can
> admire here: https://www.mapcontrib.xyz/t/2d975c-Geplande_
> adreswijzigingen_gemeentefusies
>
> One more thing to think about: new municipality polygons. I suppose we
> just create a new one for each of the new municipalities. But:
> - should we map them already as "future boundaries" or do we wait?
> - what to do with the old boundaries? We map part-communities at
> admin_level=9. Most of the new fusions will already have them. We could
> replace them with the current level 8 borders. But since "part communities"
> do not exist officially, we can basically just decide what we want to do.
> We map them mostly because this is what people know about where they live.
> And most definitions of part-communities (though usually vague) start from
> "municipalities as they existed in 1976" or similar. My proposal would be:
> if there are already part-communities, don't touch them. If there aren't,
> downgrade current level 8 to level 9.
>
> Feel free to extend the wiki about it: https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Municipality_Fusions#New_
> official_codes_and_names
> And please add anything you're working on to the planning page:
> https://github.com/osmbe/community_planning/issues/2
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fwd: [OSGeo.be-Announce] foss4g.be: Call for presentations - Appel à présentations - Oproep voor presentaties

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Is there an 'OSM is winning' talk planned already?



Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

2018-06-26 11:54 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :

> Apply now to present at Foss4g!
>
> Just like last year, OSM-be is involved in planning and programming. Stuff
> related to OpenStreetMap is welcome. For "niche" stuff, we might make a
> special OSM track. If your talk is more for a general audience, it might
> make the main track.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Moritz Lennert 
> Date: 2018-06-26 10:50 GMT+02:00
> Subject: [OSGeo.be-Announce] foss4g.be: Call for presentations - Appel à
> présentations - Oproep voor presentaties
> To: belgium-annou...@lists.osgeo.org
>
>
> Dear all, Goeie dag, Bonjour à tous,
>
> 
> Pour la version française de cet appel: https://2018.foss4g.be/papers.
> php?lang=fr
> Voor de nederlandse versie van deze oproep: https://2018.foss4g.be/papers.
> php?lang=nl
> To immediately jump to the full information in English:
> https://2018.foss4g.be/papers.php?lang=en
> 
>
> After successful events in 2015, 2016 and 2017, OSGeo.be will organize
> another edition of the FOSS4G Belgium Conference on Thursday 25 October
> 2018 in Brussels. We are looking for contributors who want to support this
> event through a presentation.
>
> FOSS4G conferences gather developers and users of Open Source geospatial
> software from around the world to discuss new directions, exciting
> implementations, and growing business opportunities in this domain. Recent
> years have seen substantial changes in the geospatial industry. One of
> those changes has been the growth in maturity and adoption of Free and Open
> Source solutions. In many cases organizations are using a mixture of open
> and closed source solutions.
>
> We will share knowledge and experiences during the whole event through
> presentations and demonstrations with 25 minutes each at most.
>
> To submit a proposal go to http://2018.foss4g.be/submit-paper.php.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you !
>
> Best wishes,
>
> the foss4g.be team
> ___
> Belgium-Announce mailing list
> belgium-annou...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/belgium-announce
>
>
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Vakbondskantoren: office=labor_union of office=trade_union ?

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hallo Denis,

De ACV is van mij, al begon ik toen pas. Goeie kans dat er inderdaad een
betere tag voor is.

Er bestaat geen pagina op de osm-wiki die iets aanraadt, enkel een
vermelding bij NGO voor 'office=union', wat niet echt duidelijk is.

Ook op taginfo 
blijkt dat er erg weinig unions gemapped zijn - 200 is niet veel op een
wereldwijde schaal.

Merk op dat OSM de facto een Britse schrijfwijze hanteert (toch buiten de
VS); ik volg je mening dus. Mss kun je dit op de wiki documenteren of eens
op de tagging-mailinglijst opsmijten?


On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, 15:25 Denis Verheyden  wrote:Hey

> Hallo iedereen,
>
>
> Bij het taggen van een aantal zaken kwam ik er één tegen waar ik niet goed
> weet wat mee aan te vangen. Hoe taggen we vakbondskantoren ?
>
>
> In taginfo zie ik 2 veel gebruikte opties:
>
> office=labor_union
>
> office=trade_union
>
>
> De vraag is: wat is het meest passend hier ? Ik doel dan werkelijk op
> kantoren van ABVV/ACV/etc..
>
> Als ik overpass tags op de map laat zetten krijg ik voor labor_union maar
> 1 resultaat in België (ACV Sint-Michiels-Brugge)
>
> De Engelse schrijfwijze (met u, dus labour_union) levert nog 2 extra
> resultaten op: ABVV in Halle en Zeebrugge.
>
> Voor trade_union krijg ik enkel de FGTB in Bouillon.
>
>
> Als ik zuiver op de benamingen afga zou ik toch denken dat labor_union
> voor werknemers is (want labor/labour=arbeid, dus werknemers), en
> trade_union voor werkgevers (want trade=handel, vak).
>
> Dus dan zou trade_union voor Vlaanderen eerder iets zijn als VOKA, VBO of
> Unizo (en hun onderliggende sectororganisaties zoals Febiac, Confederatie
> Bouw, Comeos enz).
>
>
> Groeten,
>
> Denis
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Boortmeerbeek

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Op het eerste zicht ziet dat er goed uit. Misschien nog een maxspeed
toevoegen met de snelheidslimiet?

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

Op 21 april 2018 om 11:22 schreef Karel Adams <fa348...@skynet.be>:

> In Boortmeerbeek is er een weg bijgelegd om industrieverkaveling
> bereikbaar te maken, ik ben daar zojuist langs gereden om naar de Aldi te
> gaan :) Er stond nog niks van op OSM dus ik heb er dat proberen bij zetten,
> maar ik ben geen held in het mappen van wegen dus wil aub iemand dat eens
> nakijken / verbeteren / becritiseren?
>
> Er moet daar ooit een paaltje gestaan hebben om de toegang te blokkeren
> voor auto's - node 705918034 - dat staat er nu niet meer maar de bordjes
> terzake staan er nog wel. Het is me niet duidelijk waar het naartoe gaat -
> ofwel bordjes weg ofwel paaltje(s) terug dus ik liet die voorlopig maar
> staan.
>
> Als ik er nog eens passeer zal ik wel eens de namen en adressen van de
> bedrijven noteren en die toevoegen.
>
> zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.96200/4.59099
>
> Karel (alias Jan Olieslagers :) )
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Nodes or areas to tag amenities

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

I have some experience with indoor mapping.

I would invite you guys to have a look at my work of the Blekerij in Gent
<https://openlevelup.net/old/?lat=51.060092=3.732321=19=0=0=1=0=0=0=0=0>,
as example. Toilets can be mapped as either a point or area with
'amenity=toilets, indoor=yes; level=0' (or perhaps 'level=0-2', e.g. for a
building with toilets on the same location on floors 0 till 2.). Note that
'level=0' is the ground floor (gelijkvloers).

I have no experience with the building:part=yes. I assume that indoor=yes
implies 'building:part=yes' and that 'building:part' is rather used for
roofs etc...




Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

2018-04-18 18:13 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com>:

> How does this relate to the building:part=yes strategy that L'imaginaire
> has been playing with, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283645760
>
> 2018-04-18 15:56 GMT+02:00 Ubipo . <ubipo.ski...@gmail.com>:
>
>> After furter consideration I think indoor=level combined with
>> amenity=restaurant should solve most problems.
>> Improving the map would then be as simple as not editing the general
>> indoor=level and just drawing new ways for individual rooms (not tagged
>> amenity=restaurant).
>>
>> A restaurant on multiple floors would indeed be tricky as indoor=level
>> implies a single level, although I think just adding level=0;1 shouldn't be
>> that bad, right?
>>
>> On 18 April 2018 at 13:58, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> how does someone "improve" your mapping to add a separate area for
>>> room=toilets ? nested room areas ? split it off ?
>>>
>>> m.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Ubipo . <ubipo.ski...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Regarding the housenumbers: street and number is as said probably not
>>> needed
>>> > and better reserved for the actual building, although a specialised
>>> > addr:addition=a could be useful for the rooms.
>>> > Regarding room=restaurant, I think that tag is perfectly fine. It just
>>> > indicates the restaurant in it's entirety, with dining room, kitchen
>>> etc.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 12:10 marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> for the addr : it look like strange that the room is in a building
>>> that
>>> >> doesn't have the same addr:housenumber as the building.
>>> >>
>>> >> for multiple floors poi, you can draw all room with level=* tag
>>> >> or as a first step only use indoor=yes for the whole area
>>> >>
>>> >> room=restaurant look like also strange for me.
>>> >> a restaurant is several room=* item : kitchen, dining room, toilets,
>>> >> cloakroom
>>> >> so what's a room=restaurant ? it can not be the same as the area used
>>> >> for amenity=restaurant. maybe it should be the area for the dining
>>> room.
>>> >> the wiki advice to put both tag to the same polygon look like wrong.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Le 18. 04. 18 à 11:56, Marc Gemis a écrit :
>>> >> > o, I forgot, what about a restaurant that occupies multiple floors ?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> The idea of using indoor mapping is good, and it's probably the
>>> future
>>> >> >> to solve all the problems you mention. (we had a similar discussion
>>> >> >> last Friday on the Riot channel)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Some remarks:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> - does it make sense for a "room" to have an house number and a
>>> street
>>> >> >> ? I would expect those on the building, and floor or level or so on
>>> >> >> the room.
>>> >> >> - I'm not familiar enough with the simple  indoor tagging, but I
>>> would
>>> >> >> expect that a restaurant exists of multiple rooms (dining, toilets,
>>> >> >> kitchen) not just one.
>>> >> >> - On the Riot channel the entrance to the restaurant was also seen
>>> as
>>> >> >> important.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> m
>>> >> >>
>>> >>

Re: [OSM-talk-be] How to request arbitration?

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey Karel,

This is the Belgian mailing list. Why send us, espacially about an aerodome
in Denmark?

Please ask the Data Working Group. We are not qualified for arbitration.


Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

2018-04-01 23:08 GMT+02:00 Karel Adams <fa348...@skynet.be>:

> I am in a bitter dispute with a couple of mappers who absolutely refuse to
> accept a "name=*" tag on an aerodrome because officially it has no name -
> indeed it figures in no official document.
>
> My point of view is that an "invented" name - which can be discussed, of
> course - is better than no name at all but they are quite adamant. How to
> address this?
>
> For the details: see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57717417
> and  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/573934869
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names has been called in but I found
> nothing there to indicate only *official* names should be mentioned.
>
> This seems really a case for arbitration, but how to request it?
>
> Karel
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] railways and stations

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

I don't think the community is very active around railways.

However, there are some guidelines about repurposed railways (it is
railway=abandoned, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railways#Life-cycle).


Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

2018-01-28 15:07 GMT+01:00 Stijn Rombauts <stijnromba...@yahoo.com>:

> Nobody else voted, so ref=L25.
> Junctions: I've come across many places where the switches were tagged as
> junctions. I've added a few words about junctions in the conventions page.
> And I've added railway=preserved for railbikes and touristic trains.
> Other comments always welcome.
>
> StijnRR
>
>
> --
> *From:* Ben Laenen <benlae...@gmail.com>
> *To:* talk-be@openstreetmap.org; Stijn Rombauts <stijnromba...@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 20, 2018 6:59 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk-be] railways and stations
>
> Your message was directly sent to my spam box for some reason...
>
> On Saturday, 20 January 2018 14:27:39 CET Stijn Rombauts wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am rewriting the conventions page about railways [1]. It was a bit
> > outdated...A few questions:- I kept the convention about the name ("L"
> > followed by the number of the line, e.g. L25). But I noticed it hasn't
> been
> > followed in many places (often 25 or L.25).
>
> That's a small issue, our railways don't use the same convention
> everywhere,
> and you can find both L.25 and L25. When I started redrawing the railways
> in
> Belgium I ended up using L.25, whereas I've now started to think that
> ref=L25
> is the better option, and would fit in more with the other refs being used
> on
> junctions etc.
>
> We just need to decide on one and keep using that. I'd now vote on L25.
>
> > Do we keep this convention or
> > not? The HSL/LGV lines have been given other names like "Ligne Nouvelle
> 1"
> > or "LGV 3 - HSL 3". What do we do these?
>
> The names shouldn't really be there, but I guess they don't do much harm.
> Their refs are ref=L.1 or L1 etc, no HSL or LGV in ref numbers.
>
> > - The relations usually have a
> > ref=L.25. (with the point). Still OK?
>
> Same answer as above.
>
> > - Some switches/junctions have a name
> > (e.g. Y Val-Benoit) and are tagged as railway=junction. But this page [2]
> > seems to suggest that railway=switch is a better tag. Or do we keep the
> > railway=junction tag for named switches/junctions?
>
> railway=junction is for a single node somewhere near the area where one or
> more switches are located. Their name should be something like
> name=Y.Abeelstraat (with a dot there), their reference is for example
> ref=YABLS without a dot.
>
> railway=switch is for one single switch, they've got no names, only a
> reference, like ref=05AM.
>
>
> > - Railway stations: I
> > guess we're supposed to follow the rules/guidelines in this page [3]? Or
> do
> > we have other opinions? E.g. in Visé [4] the tag railway=station has been
> > used 3 times...
>
> There should only be a single node tagged as railway=station.
>
>
> > - Do we keep the distinction between railway=station and
> > railway=halt. As more and more stations (=buildings) are closed, it seems
> > to me that the distinction between the two has become quite vague.
>
> There are a lot of definitions going around. In the railway definition a
> station would need a switch and allow a train to depart from. That would
> make
> Brussels-Central not a station... But in the end it's just better to tag
> them
> all railway=station.
>
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Overpass turbo exporteren as png

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

I have never been able to export like that as well, with the same issue.


Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

2018-01-27 11:23 GMT+01:00 Jakka <vdmfrank...@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Trying to export a query map in png do not work.
>
>
> rendering map data <is hanging here
> rendering map tiles
> prepare map
>
>
> Is this a known issue ?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Réunion OSM à Arlon - OSM Meeting in Arlon - 16 January 2018 at 19.30

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

I added this to the meetup page:
https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/events/246831516/


Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

2018-01-15 11:52 GMT+01:00 Pierre Parmentier <pierrecparment...@gmail.com>:

> To the OSM Mappers of the PLuxembourg province and around,
>
> We shall meet on Tuesday 24 October 2017 at 19.30 in Arlon.
> Already 4 subscribed! WiFi available.
> Meeting at the taverne Les Arcades, place Léopold 5.
>
> --
>
> Salut à tous les cartographes OSM de la province de Luxembourg et alentour,
>
> Mardi 24 octobre 2017, à 19.30 h, réunion à Arlon.
> Déjà 4 inscrits ! WiFi disponible.
> Rendez-vous à la taverne Les Arcades, place Léopold 5.
>
> Pierre P. /// foxandpotatoes
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] GRB Flanders

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hallo allemaal,

Bedankt voor de vele reacties, voorlopig ga ik aan de slag gaan met de
area-selector die Sus mij aanbood.

Maar ook de automatische GRB-import lijkt mij veelbelovend (maar het lijkt
dat dit nog lang gaat duren...) Ik zal mij eens wat beter informeren bij
een volgende meetup of mappathon.


Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet

Op 21 oktober 2017 om 07:02 schreef joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com
>:

> Deze pagina bevat een uitgebreide omschrijving van wat het grb is en omvat:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/GRB
>
>
> Hier is het werkdocument ivm een mogelijke import, in eerste plaats van
> gebouwen met adressen:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GRBimport
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] GRB Flanders

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hallo allemaal,

Waar kan ik wat meer informatie vinden over de AGIV GRB 'Flanders' kaarten?
En hoe teken ik die het beste?

De voorbije weken heb ik serieus wat huisjes getraced, maar dat moet toch
efficiënter kunnen...

Ik las ergens iets over plugins in JOSM... Is er een tutorial voor? (Of als
iemand mij dat in een paar woorden kan uitleggen, wil ik die ook wel
schrijven).

Ik vond deze wiki-pagina
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Using_AGIV_Crab_data/AGIV_Website_as_Reference#Use_AGIV_Aerial_Images>
maar die is erg verouderd (slechts één link die nog werkt).

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be