Hello, Thanks for this.
@Polyglot, I saw you updated numbered cycle routes (1 to 12). The Brussels cycle route network also has 7 routes with letters. I suppose we should apply the same change. A small circle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/237027 B middle circle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/116569 C large circle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7418111 CC: Canal/Kanaal: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1119347 SZ Senne/Zenne valley: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/116611 MM Maalbeek valley: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/114235 PP (King’s Palace): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2133184 Cheers. Yves On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:40:29 +0200 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I had a look at them after downloading them using Overpass API and started > making them continuous where they were 'broken'. So I went ahead and also > converted them all to rcn. > > Jo > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:41 AM Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Joost, > > > > In Flanders it depended more on topology than anything else. We used: > > > > lcn: for loops > > rcn: for the numbered node networks, this logic was taken to rwn and rhn > > later on > > ncn: for long routes going from A to B (LFx) and then later for the Fxxx > > cycle highways > > icn: for European routes going from A to B > > > > In Brussels rcn doesn't seem to be used and those routes are topologically > > more similar to the numbered routes system used in Flanders and Wallonia. > > > > I agree with you that it makes more sense to tag them as rcn. > > > > Jo > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:14 AM joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I was always a little confused that the regional cycle network is mapped > >> as lcn in Brussels. Since this network is organized by Brussels-the-region, > >> not Brussels-the-city, it seems logical that it should have the rcn tag. In > >> fact, more so than the Flemish cycle node network, which is composed of > >> several networks and almost by coincidence covers the region. > >> > >> This is also what we say in the wiki: > >> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Cycle_Routes#Itin.C3.A9raires_Cyclables_R.C3.A9gionaux_-_Gewestelijke_Fietsroute > >> > >> But the example given there (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9623 > >> I believe), is now mapped as an lcn. > >> > >> Looking at the edit history, it looks like there was a minor edit war > >> about this, where user RoRay repeatedly changed it from rcn to lcn > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/8141976 > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/12902663 > >> (RoRay is still mapping, still using the not-very helpful default > >> changeset description "update") > >> > >> User BenoitL tried to change it back to rcn (with much better changeset > >> comments :) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/12849599), but I > >> guess he gave up. Polyglot later seems to have mapped most of the other > >> routes; my guess is he just went with lcn because that's how the others > >> were mapped. > >> > >> Apart from the network not showing up when it should on some maps, it > >> doesn't really matter much. However, bxl-forever is now mapping -actual- > >> lcn routes in the Brussels region, operated by Anderlecht municipality. > >> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11544325 > >> Putting both types of routes in the same level is just wrong IMHO. > >> > >> Can anyone provide some more context? Based on my own research, I'd > >> suggest we simply retag all the regional operated routes from lcn to rcn. > >> > >> Best, > >> Joost Schouppe > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
