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

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

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

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: > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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