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

2020-01-06 Thread Jo 
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020, 23:07 Pieter Vander Vennet 
wrote:

> 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
> .
> 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!
>

I may have made a mistake though. I only saw it when I reread the thread;
BE: is missing.

> 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 :
>
>> 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
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
>
___
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)

2020-01-06 Thread 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
.
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 > >:
>>
>> 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 
>> 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)

2020-01-06 Thread 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 > >:
>>
>> 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 
>> 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