Hi Stijn,
Thanks a lot for sharing this. Despite the many hours I spent reading
the doc, I never found this one... It definitely deserves attention from
mappers focused on this network.
After reading, and with the various experiences I got mapping
specifically that network, I would like to bring two elements to the
attention of other mappers sharing the same interests:
1. Both the *designation* and *vicinal_ref* tags are definitely useful,
I missed them a lot. Now I'll be able to refine the many places where it
is useful, for both communities (balnam and OSM).
2. If sometime I spent half an hour deciding between highway=track and
highway=path, I also spent _hours_ to decide between a path and a
footway... Here is THE point that I would like to insist on, and that
should probably be refined in the draft:
In the main description of the *highway* tag, for the *footway* value,
ONE word is really import: [...] "*mainly*/exclusively for pedestrians"
This "mainly" word allows to make a clean distinction according to the
real world. This distinction is definitely necessary, and it would be a
big issue if that "*mainly*" word disappears. The various places in the
doc bring the reader to conclude that a footway must have a
visible/clear restriction for pedestrians only. This would force to use
a "path" in more than 99% cases, with the loss of an important
information: Is that way usable for a non-pedestrian, non-sportman, a
normal user (bicycler)? Is a biker welcome there?
If that second point is not clear, just think of a different rendering,
like OpenCycleMap... For cycling, paths would stay visible, footways
would disappear. This may imply a deviation of >20km or a trip
cancellation for bicyclers!
Also, a bicycler may be anybody on his Sunday ride, or a confirmed
moutainbiker with good technical capabilities.
Another example of dramatic consequences would be the result of routing
software, like brouter.de, which could not be reliable at all!
=> Accurate information is fully relevant/important. (Rendering, as
always, is secondary notion, that must not influence the accuracy of the
data itself.)
NOTE: Please, consider checking around the *trail_visibility* tag too...
It seems there are contradictions between this draft and the main
understanding/other descriptions! There are many misuses of this one.
Regards,
François
On 12/08/20 18:11, Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote:
Hi,
A side step from the discussion of the previous days.
This page exists [1], but it isn't listed under the conventions here [2]. If
I'm not mistaken it once was, but has disappeared from that list after a while.
Does somebody know why? Or did it just fall off...
Or is it because it still has a 'draft' status? Then it is maybe time to accept
this proposal instead of leaving it for years as a draft.
Anyway, if that page were a bit more visible, perhaps more people would follow
those (draft) conventions (and also use the correct tags, e.g. vicinal_ref
instead of ref or name).
Regards,
StijnRR
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium
_______________________________________________
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
