I would assume that something like cycle.travel will compute a bicycle-friendly route for the missing parts if all streets are mapped properly with max speed, cycleways, surfaces, etc. There is indeed no need/justification to map personal preferences/suggestions.
If the routes calculated by dedicate cycle routers are not taking the best route, why not discuss this with the developers and see whether they can improve their algorithms or perhaps they can suggest you to add additional info that has an impact on routes. I did that in the past for my home-to-work itinerary. regards m. On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:50 AM Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Go ahead, they are not important to me. I was trying to create itineraries > that get you from one place to another today, instead of in 5 or 10 years. > > I like to see bicycle routes that are continuous. That is usually not > possible today on any of the fietsnelwegen. > > Jo > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 23:40 EeBie <ebe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I agree with the remarks of Stijn. Only the parts of the "Fietssnelwegen" >> that are realized and “Befietsbaar” on the website of Fietssnelwegen and/or >> marked in the field as such, should be on OSM as cycle route. >> During the past 2 years I suffered several times from the unreliable >> information on OSM as a user of OSM based bike route planners. Planned cycle >> highways were put on the map as realized and existing. A bike routeplanner >> makes a route with preference to cycle routes that are on OSM. I supposed to >> follow a cycle highway but landed on a single track path of 30 cm wide with >> surface of soft sand that I had to walk. On another spot I was following a >> paved footway and had to squeeze my brakes at once because the paved footway >> went over in a stairs downwards where a bridge will be build in the future. >> Luckily it was in daylight and feasible; users of cycle highways are >> supposed to take these routes before and after work when it is dark.The >> proposed routes on OSM are dangerous. >> >> I have given that cycle highway relation the state proposed=yes that makes >> that they are not taken in account on bike routeplanners and on >> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org (those proposed relations are visible on >> the Bike Map layer on OSM cycle map layer ). There was a fixme or incomplete >> remark on those relations of planned cycle highways but those doesn’t make >> that they are neglected by routeplanners. >> >> I have put the proposed state on other cycle highways that were mapped as >> going through fences over private industrial premises and others where >> biking was not permitted or where even was no path at all. >> >> I have deleted parts of cycle highways in the route relation where bike >> riding wasn’t possible as for example on railway bridge where the bridge >> wasn’t ready a few months back (maybe it is meanwhile, but I wasn’t there >> recently). >> >> A few years back I have mapped parts of cycle highways that where ready and >> marked and put on the website as “Befietsbaar” in a route relation but I had >> to notice that parts that weren’t ready were added to those relations. >> >> I also don’t like the “alternative cycle highways” because they only exist >> in the head of one person and their quality is (in a lot of cases) very poor >> and dangerous. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17298358 If you >> take this path riding on modal electric bike style downwards from the >> embankment of the canal over a small unpaved path to a narrow bridge over a >> ditch, you are death. And that should be highway for bikes. >> >> I propose to delete all what is “alternatief Fietssnelweg” because they are >> non existing and they make OSM unreliable because those routes are put as >> preferred by routeplanners. >> >> For the F Fietswegen I propose to delete the parts that are not ready from >> the route relations and leave the parts that are ready and “Befietsbaar” as >> on the on Fietssnelwegen website (putting the “proposed” status to a >> complete F relation isn’t a solution any more because parts of them are >> released as “Befietsbaar”). >> >> Regards, >> >> Eebie >> >> >> >> >> Op 23/12/19 om 21:10 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be: >> >> Hi, >> >> I don't understand why nobody else objects to the 'alternatives'. They're >> just somebody's personal inventions, but they do not exist. If we allow Jo's >> alternatives, then we have to allow anybody's alternatives, suggestions , >> etc. for cycle highways or any other kind of hiking, cycle, ... routes. E.g. >> the cycle highway between Diest and Hasselt has been deleted: can I add to >> OSM a good alternative that I use daily? I hope the aswer is no. I don't >> mind that somebody suggests on some website alternatives for the cycle >> highways which do not yet exist. It's even a very good idea, but please keep >> them out of the OSM database. >> In my opinion, only those parts which are already waymarked should be in OSM >> as cycle highways (and shown on e.g. https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org). >> The fact that there is a road or a cycle path which might be turned into a >> cycle highway, doesn't mean that there is a cycle highway. So, all the rest: >> state=proposed. [As it is already difficult enough to keep OSM a bit up to >> date, adding things which might be realised in some distant future seems to >> me a bit of a waste of time. But that's just my opinion. Anyone is free to >> do so.] >> >> Regards, >> >> StijnRR >> >> Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:23:51 CET schreef Jo <winfi...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> Hi Pieter, >> >> You are right, that is an odd way of tagging them. cycle_highway seems >> better indeed. I don't know who started doing it that way, I simply >> continued the practice, without giving it enough thought. >> >> Most of these cycle highways can't be cycled from beginning to end, they >> continue over large distances (for bicycles). This means they are all tagged >> with state=proposed. Some of them are mostly done though, like F1 or F3, but >> the parts that are missing from them will take several years to complete. Do >> we want to keep them with state=proposed? >> >> What I started doing is to also map alternatives that can be cycled from >> start to end today. I recently learned this is not really appreciated by >> some official instances. They don't control what we do, so it's not >> extremely important, but still maybe something to keep in mind. >> >> One thing I was considering to do, is to divide them in subrelations. Such >> that the parts that are finished would go into both the 'official' relation >> and into the alternative one. If you would like, I'll do this for F3, to >> show what I mean. >> >> Then there is also sometimes a difference between what is shown on >> fietsnelwegen.be and what is actually visible in the field. I'm thinking >> about the situation in Veltem, where F3 has a leg on the southern side >> marked in the field, but it is actually meant to go through the center of >> 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 <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 >> 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
