Re: [OSM-talk-be] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Pieter Brusselman]

Dag Kurt,

Over welke gemeente gaat het?


 Pieter Brusselman
Projectmedewerker
tel. 09 331 59 27
Kasteellaan 349 A, 9000 Gent
- www.tragewegen.be  
---

Volg ons spoor op 
Op 5/02/2016 om 18:58 schreef Kurt Roeckx:

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 08:33:28AM +0100, joost schouppe wrote:

Hi,

After the "rise of the voetwegen" thread, I'm glad to hear that the
available data from Trage Wegen is getting ever more available for mapping.
There now is a WF and a WMS server we can use:

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WFSServer?

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WMSServer?

There's also a viewer for those who don't like to work with WMS/WFS:

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be/tragewegen/

So looking at this data that I mapped myself for the municipality,
I see that they made some errors in inputting the data I gave
them.  Do you suggest I contact them with the errors?


Kurt


___
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] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 08:33:28AM +0100, joost schouppe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After the "rise of the voetwegen" thread, I'm glad to hear that the
> available data from Trage Wegen is getting ever more available for mapping.
> There now is a WF and a WMS server we can use:
> 
> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WFSServer?
> 
> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WMSServer?
> 
> There's also a viewer for those who don't like to work with WMS/WFS:
> 
> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be/tragewegen/

So looking at this data that I mapped myself for the municipality,
I see that they made some errors in inputting the data I gave
them.  Do you suggest I contact them with the errors?


Kurt


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[joost schouppe]

Good point. Open for suggestions. But the goal is more to have somewhere to
refer newcomers to.
Op 28-jan.-2016 10:44 schreef "Jakka" :

> Question,consideration...
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads
>
> How will some one find the right wiki when he/she never heard of slow
> roads? searching on path gives
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath,
> track
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads
>
>
> joost schouppe schreef op 28/01/2016 om 8:33:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After the "rise of the voetwegen" thread, I'm glad to hear that the
>> available data from Trage Wegen is getting ever more available for
>> mapping. There now is a WF and a WMS server we can use:
>>
>> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WFSServer?
>>
>> 
>> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WMSServer?
>>
>> There's also a viewer for those who don't like to work with WMS/WFS:
>>
>> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be/tragewegen/
>>
>> The people at Trage Wegen are really into working together with us. See
>> for example their recent blogpost:
>>
>> http://www.tragewegen.be/nieuwsoverzicht/item/3720-openstreetmap-en-de-voetwegenkwestie
>> And they're also doing a mini mapping party at their Vision Day today:
>> http://www.tragewegen.be/toekomstvisie/programma-toekomstvisie
>>
>> I'm working on a wiki page on the subject, in hopes of drawing some
>> conclusions after the previous discussion in the Rise of the voetwegen
>> thread. I didn't get any feedback on making a draft page, so I'll just
>> drop the content here - once I regain access to my work computer :(
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads
>>
>> When it's there, I'll invite all of you to improve on the content!
>>
>> --
>> Joost @
>> Openstreetmap  |
>> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>>  | Meetup
>>  | Reddit
>>  | Wordpress
>> 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Glenn Plas]

Hi Wouter,

On 28-01-16 11:38, Wouter Hamelinck wrote:
> 
> That is true but I'm missing a general mapping strategy, there is some
> widespread tag misuse IMHO.
> 
> 
> IMHO this is valid for any kind of mapping, even where there exist clear
> guidelines.

Yes you are totally right. But we can do better I believe.  There is a
strong core growing in our community lately. Some smart people..., let's
raise the bar.

> 
> It's really a binary thing, either it exists and verifiable in the
> field, or either it's not.  We don't record historic buildings that have
> disappeared, same applies to those roads that are gone and merely exist
> on paper.
> 
> 
> It is not as binary as you would like to. Roads don't reappear
> spontaneously. Paths do. Sometimes limited periods of the year.
> Buildings don't move spontaneously. Path certainly do.
> 
> The binary cases are
> - visible and accessible year-round: in OSM
> - invisible and totally inaccessible (e.g. going through building): not
> in OSM
> I think we can all agree on that.

Awesome. Those are the most important ones too.

> It gets a bit more tricky in the border cases, and there I add my opinion
> - visible and inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): in OSM, with
> access=private or whatever is appropriate and mapping the barriers
> - sometimes visible and year-round accessible: in OSM
> - visible and sometimes accessible (due to fences): in OSM and lots of
> fun with the access tags
> - visible and sometimes accessible (due to vegetation): in OSM. Is there
> by now a seasonal tag that can be used?
> - invisible and year-round accessible: in OSM (*)
> - year-round invisible and year-round inaccessible (e.g. due to fence):
> not in OSM (motivation: why would it be? It's no use to anyone)
> 
> (*): this is probably the most controversial one. If the consensus is
> that this doesn't belong in OSM, just walk it a few times and you are in
> the case "sometimes visible and year-round accessible". Put it in OSM as
> such.
> 
> Just as a description of cases where it not binary. If often pass over
> ways that are in Atlas, but most of the time you don't see any path. I
> just happen to know how the way crosses the field and that's how I go.
> Because it is in the Atlas, I'm allowed to do so. Even when crops are
> growing in the field I make my way across (**).
> Sometimes I encounter footprints, so I'm definitely not the only one
> that is using it. Especially during the winter a faint path may become
> visible. When a group of people happened to pass a few days (or even
> weeks depending on the weather) beforehand, you see a more or less clear
> path. Should it be in OSM? For me that is yes. Even if you won't see
> anything most of the year.
> (**): unless the farmer decides again to plant those thorny things that
> ripped my legs open when I tried to run across them


Ok, you make valid points, since you're a walker.. I drive to the Dojo ;-)

I agree with your views for most of the points you make. But maybe my
focus was wrong.  I want to define the appropriate tags and document it.
 I just checked the wiki, we even have multiple pages on those topics.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Walking_Routes

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Walking_Routes

Trage wegen deserves a full page with tagging conventions.  I've been
reading up on all threads on this subject and we have some good
information we shared, It's a lot to read through already.

Concerning all those different non-binary paths, we actually lack a a
better way to tag the "visibility/accessibility in time"
(summer/winter/vegetation/flooded, etc. ).  I actually thought it
existed but I can't really find anything on it any more in the wiki.

Everyone works like he wants, but I would focus on those binary ones
first, and then the exception.  The wiki page could grow along because
it is a lot to document.  But I understand people like to go deep in
detail so I can't complain about a good thing.  I'm more like : I want
value for my time, I use OSM data for geocoding 24/7, When I add
buildings and address data I get better results immediately almost.
That's when I start seeing voetwegen in reverse geocoding requests
because it has a name key.

I believe buurt/kerk/trage wegen ... it really deserves it's own wiki
corner.  I can easily fix most of the errors in an hour with overpass.
The reason I don't do it yet is because I've been analysing the data for
a while now and I'm still not sure in what to change it to make it uniform.

> Joost,
> I think it would be very good to put that page online (with disclaimer
> that it is under discussion at the moment). You might get some heat at
> points where some people don't agree, but at least it will make the
> discussion more focused.

Totally support this and I will contri

Re: [OSM-talk-be] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Marc Gemis]

I totally agree with Wouter's list. And I leave the most edge cases in
OSM, even when they are only tagged with note=Weg XXX (no highway
tag). But the ones that are just crossing through houses, through
backyards, etc. I remove. Also the ones through fenced fields are
deleted. Again, it's about ways that are tagged as note=xxx, not as
highway



regards
m

p.s. Joost, with "they" I mean whoever is mapping those non-existing
(at this moment) paths as note in OSM.


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Wouter Hamelinck
 wrote:
>
>> That is true but I'm missing a general mapping strategy, there is some
>> widespread tag misuse IMHO.
>
>
> IMHO this is valid for any kind of mapping, even where there exist clear
> guidelines.
>
>> It's really a binary thing, either it exists and verifiable in the
>> field, or either it's not.  We don't record historic buildings that have
>> disappeared, same applies to those roads that are gone and merely exist
>> on paper.
>
>
> It is not as binary as you would like to. Roads don't reappear
> spontaneously. Paths do. Sometimes limited periods of the year.
> Buildings don't move spontaneously. Path certainly do.
>
> The binary cases are
> - visible and accessible year-round: in OSM
> - invisible and totally inaccessible (e.g. going through building): not in
> OSM
> I think we can all agree on that.
>
> It gets a bit more tricky in the border cases, and there I add my opinion
> - visible and inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): in OSM, with access=private
> or whatever is appropriate and mapping the barriers
> - sometimes visible and year-round accessible: in OSM
> - visible and sometimes accessible (due to fences): in OSM and lots of fun
> with the access tags
> - visible and sometimes accessible (due to vegetation): in OSM. Is there by
> now a seasonal tag that can be used?
> - invisible and year-round accessible: in OSM (*)
> - year-round invisible and year-round inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): not
> in OSM (motivation: why would it be? It's no use to anyone)
>
> (*): this is probably the most controversial one. If the consensus is that
> this doesn't belong in OSM, just walk it a few times and you are in the case
> "sometimes visible and year-round accessible". Put it in OSM as such.
>
> Just as a description of cases where it not binary. If often pass over ways
> that are in Atlas, but most of the time you don't see any path. I just
> happen to know how the way crosses the field and that's how I go. Because it
> is in the Atlas, I'm allowed to do so. Even when crops are growing in the
> field I make my way across (**).
> Sometimes I encounter footprints, so I'm definitely not the only one that is
> using it. Especially during the winter a faint path may become visible. When
> a group of people happened to pass a few days (or even weeks depending on
> the weather) beforehand, you see a more or less clear path. Should it be in
> OSM? For me that is yes. Even if you won't see anything most of the year.
> (**): unless the farmer decides again to plant those thorny things that
> ripped my legs open when I tried to run across them
>
> Joost,
> I think it would be very good to put that page online (with disclaimer that
> it is under discussion at the moment). You might get some heat at points
> where some people don't agree, but at least it will make the discussion more
> focused.
>
> wouter
>
> --
> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
>- Thor Heyerdahl
>
> ___
> 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] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Wouter Hamelinck]

> That is true but I'm missing a general mapping strategy, there is some
> widespread tag misuse IMHO.
>

IMHO this is valid for any kind of mapping, even where there exist clear
guidelines.

It's really a binary thing, either it exists and verifiable in the
> field, or either it's not.  We don't record historic buildings that have
> disappeared, same applies to those roads that are gone and merely exist
> on paper. 


It is not as binary as you would like to. Roads don't reappear
spontaneously. Paths do. Sometimes limited periods of the year.
Buildings don't move spontaneously. Path certainly do.

The binary cases are
- visible and accessible year-round: in OSM
- invisible and totally inaccessible (e.g. going through building): not in
OSM
I think we can all agree on that.

It gets a bit more tricky in the border cases, and there I add my opinion
- visible and inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): in OSM, with access=private
or whatever is appropriate and mapping the barriers
- sometimes visible and year-round accessible: in OSM
- visible and sometimes accessible (due to fences): in OSM and lots of fun
with the access tags
- visible and sometimes accessible (due to vegetation): in OSM. Is there by
now a seasonal tag that can be used?
- invisible and year-round accessible: in OSM (*)
- year-round invisible and year-round inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): not
in OSM (motivation: why would it be? It's no use to anyone)

(*): this is probably the most controversial one. If the consensus is that
this doesn't belong in OSM, just walk it a few times and you are in the
case "sometimes visible and year-round accessible". Put it in OSM as such.

Just as a description of cases where it not binary. If often pass over ways
that are in Atlas, but most of the time you don't see any path. I just
happen to know how the way crosses the field and that's how I go. Because
it is in the Atlas, I'm allowed to do so. Even when crops are growing in
the field I make my way across (**).
Sometimes I encounter footprints, so I'm definitely not the only one that
is using it. Especially during the winter a faint path may become visible.
When a group of people happened to pass a few days (or even weeks depending
on the weather) beforehand, you see a more or less clear path. Should it be
in OSM? For me that is yes. Even if you won't see anything most of the year.
(**): unless the farmer decides again to plant those thorny things that
ripped my legs open when I tried to run across them

Joost,
I think it would be very good to put that page online (with disclaimer that
it is under discussion at the moment). You might get some heat at points
where some people don't agree, but at least it will make the discussion
more focused.

wouter

-- 
"Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
   - Thor Heyerdahl
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Glenn Plas]

On 28-01-16 08:16, joost schouppe wrote:
> Marc,
> If by "they" you mean "trage wegen vzw", I think they have a pretty good
> understanding of what does and does not belong in Openstreetmap. They
> actively promote OSM use amongst their public, which is a good thing.

That is true but I'm missing a general mapping strategy, there is some
widespread tag misuse IMHO.  I wonder if they actually consulted an
experienced mapper to determine the keys/tags that should have been
used.  I'm not saying everyone does a bad job but depending on the
mapper, keys differ.

I was planning to analyse and review all that work using overpass API
and do some gardening here locally.

> But if you mean mappers in general, I would say that we still could do
> more to guide people. TheTrage Wegen blog post mentioned above was
> originally meant to include a link to the wiki page I want to make, but
> because I'm so slow, that wasn't ready yet. I think it would be very
> useful to have a wikified version of our discussions here.
> Edge cases of what does and does not belong in OSM is one of the
> subjects in that wiki.

It's really a binary thing, either it exists and verifiable in the
field, or either it's not.  We don't record historic buildings that have
disappeared, same applies to those roads that are gone and merely exist
on paper.

> As to names and numbers, I really like Ben Laenen's proposal to put
> those in vicinal_ref=*. "Voetweg XX" should then only be put in the
> name=* if it is marked as such in the field.

The fact that voetwegen are getting a very general name also gives
problems when geocoding.  Chances are when you reverse geocode something
close to a voetweg, that the result will not be the real street we want
to know about, but the voetweg.  The word problem might be a bit harsh,
but noone really knows about them, people are interested in real
streets.   I don't think the term 'voetweg' belongs in the name tag.

> I don't see a problem with vicinal_ref being filled with data that
> cannot be verified in the field (but verifiable with open data). All
> data should be verifiable, but not all of that will ever be verifiable
> in the field.

That is actually a base requirement of OSM, it has to be physically
there.  I think Marc is very correct in saying ways that pass through a
house are a big nono (he means: they do not exist in real life).  So it
has no value for OSM.  Besides the fact that crossing a road with a
building is an error.

Glenn




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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Jakka]

Question,consideration...

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads

How will some one find the right wiki when he/she never heard of slow 
roads? searching on path gives

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath,
track
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads


joost schouppe schreef op 28/01/2016 om 8:33:

Hi,

After the "rise of the voetwegen" thread, I'm glad to hear that the
available data from Trage Wegen is getting ever more available for
mapping. There now is a WF and a WMS server we can use:

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WFSServer?

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WMSServer?

There's also a viewer for those who don't like to work with WMS/WFS:

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be/tragewegen/

The people at Trage Wegen are really into working together with us. See
for example their recent blogpost:
http://www.tragewegen.be/nieuwsoverzicht/item/3720-openstreetmap-en-de-voetwegenkwestie
And they're also doing a mini mapping party at their Vision Day today:
http://www.tragewegen.be/toekomstvisie/programma-toekomstvisie

I'm working on a wiki page on the subject, in hopes of drawing some
conclusions after the previous discussion in the Rise of the voetwegen
thread. I didn't get any feedback on making a draft page, so I'll just
drop the content here - once I regain access to my work computer :(

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads

When it's there, I'll invite all of you to improve on the content!

--
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress



___
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] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[joost schouppe]

Marc,
If by "they" you mean "trage wegen vzw", I think they have a pretty good
understanding of what does and does not belong in Openstreetmap. They
actively promote OSM use amongst their public, which is a good thing. But
if you mean mappers in general, I would say that we still could do more to
guide people. TheTrage Wegen blog post mentioned above was originally meant
to include a link to the wiki page I want to make, but because I'm so slow,
that wasn't ready yet. I think it would be very useful to have a wikified
version of our discussions here.
Edge cases of what does and does not belong in OSM is one of the subjects
in that wiki.

As to names and numbers, I really like Ben Laenen's proposal to put those
in vicinal_ref=*. "Voetweg XX" should then only be put in the name=* if it
is marked as such in the field.
I don't see a problem with vicinal_ref being filled with data that cannot
be verified in the field (but verifiable with open data). All data should
be verifiable, but not all of that will ever be verifiable in the field.

2016-01-28 8:41 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis :

> I'm currently processing my surveyed data around Wieze (Lebbeke). It's
> amazing how many ways user Scapor mapped there with note: "Weg nr.
> xxx" or "Path nr yyy". Some of those lines are just draw through
> buildings.
> It's data from around 2011. But I hope we (and they) learned that we
> only want data that is actually there. A path that was there in 1800,
> should not be on the  map when you cannot use it nowadays. Even not as
> a note.
>
> I also wonder what I should do with the paths/tracks that still exist,
> but for which the name ("Weg nr. YY") cannot be verified in the field.
> None of those roads have a sign with their number. At least in this
> area, in many other areas there are signs with "Voetweg XX" or
> similar.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:33 AM, joost schouppe
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > After the "rise of the voetwegen" thread, I'm glad to hear that the
> > available data from Trage Wegen is getting ever more available for
> mapping.
> > There now is a WF and a WMS server we can use:
> >
> > http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WFSServer?
> >
> > http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WMSServer?
> >
> > There's also a viewer for those who don't like to work with WMS/WFS:
> >
> > http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be/tragewegen/
> >
> > The people at Trage Wegen are really into working together with us. See
> for
> > example their recent blogpost:
> >
> http://www.tragewegen.be/nieuwsoverzicht/item/3720-openstreetmap-en-de-voetwegenkwestie
> > And they're also doing a mini mapping party at their Vision Day today:
> > http://www.tragewegen.be/toekomstvisie/programma-toekomstvisie
> >
> > I'm working on a wiki page on the subject, in hopes of drawing some
> > conclusions after the previous discussion in the Rise of the voetwegen
> > thread. I didn't get any feedback on making a draft page, so I'll just
> drop
> > the content here - once I regain access to my work computer :(
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads
> >
> > When it's there, I'll invite all of you to improve on the content!
> >
> > --
> > Joost @
> > Openstreetmap | Twitter | LinkedIn | Meetup | Reddit | Wordpress
> >
> > ___
> > 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 @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[Marc Gemis]

I'm currently processing my surveyed data around Wieze (Lebbeke). It's
amazing how many ways user Scapor mapped there with note: "Weg nr.
xxx" or "Path nr yyy". Some of those lines are just draw through
buildings.
It's data from around 2011. But I hope we (and they) learned that we
only want data that is actually there. A path that was there in 1800,
should not be on the  map when you cannot use it nowadays. Even not as
a note.

I also wonder what I should do with the paths/tracks that still exist,
but for which the name ("Weg nr. YY") cannot be verified in the field.
None of those roads have a sign with their number. At least in this
area, in many other areas there are signs with "Voetweg XX" or
similar.

regards

m

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:33 AM, joost schouppe
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After the "rise of the voetwegen" thread, I'm glad to hear that the
> available data from Trage Wegen is getting ever more available for mapping.
> There now is a WF and a WMS server we can use:
>
> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WFSServer?
>
> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WMSServer?
>
> There's also a viewer for those who don't like to work with WMS/WFS:
>
> http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be/tragewegen/
>
> The people at Trage Wegen are really into working together with us. See for
> example their recent blogpost:
> http://www.tragewegen.be/nieuwsoverzicht/item/3720-openstreetmap-en-de-voetwegenkwestie
> And they're also doing a mini mapping party at their Vision Day today:
> http://www.tragewegen.be/toekomstvisie/programma-toekomstvisie
>
> I'm working on a wiki page on the subject, in hopes of drawing some
> conclusions after the previous discussion in the Rise of the voetwegen
> thread. I didn't get any feedback on making a draft page, so I'll just drop
> the content here - once I regain access to my work computer :(
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads
>
> When it's there, I'll invite all of you to improve on the content!
>
> --
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap | Twitter | LinkedIn | Meetup | Reddit | Wordpress
>
> ___
> 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] rise of the voetwegen, part 2

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

After the "rise of the voetwegen" thread, I'm glad to hear that the
available data from Trage Wegen is getting ever more available for mapping.
There now is a WF and a WMS server we can use:

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WFSServer?

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be:/TrageWegen/MapServer/WMSServer?

There's also a viewer for those who don't like to work with WMS/WFS:

http://geo.vlaamsbrabant.be/tragewegen/

The people at Trage Wegen are really into working together with us. See for
example their recent blogpost:
http://www.tragewegen.be/nieuwsoverzicht/item/3720-openstreetmap-en-de-voetwegenkwestie
And they're also doing a mini mapping party at their Vision Day today:
http://www.tragewegen.be/toekomstvisie/programma-toekomstvisie

I'm working on a wiki page on the subject, in hopes of drawing some
conclusions after the previous discussion in the Rise of the voetwegen
thread. I didn't get any feedback on making a draft page, so I'll just drop
the content here - once I regain access to my work computer :(

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads

When it's there, I'll invite all of you to improve on the content!

-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress

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