Hi,

These tagging issues always make me uncomfortable :)

Against "use_sidepath" in this case:
- it's a trunk road, so no cycling anyway (Wouter)
- the cycle path can be seen as just a path that happens to be near the R4;
it doesn't -really- have a relation with the road itself (escada on Riot)
- the confusion with the part that DOES have a cycle path shouldn't happen;
that shouldn't be a trunk road! (Wouter)

In favour of the use_sidepath:
- it clearly shows there's an alternative
- there's several roads mapped as trunk in Belgium that do have a cycle
path. Should we change all of them? And if we change our minds (or someone
else just changes things again), then the cycling info might suddenly be
useful again
- it makes it slightly easier to understand the situation when mapping

Since there is no clear opposition to use use_sidepath in this case, I
think I'll change it to that.

Joost

Op do 9 apr. 2020 om 20:35 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet <
pieterv...@posteo.net>:

> 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 <
> 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
>> https://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
>


-- 
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

Reply via email to