Talk:WikiProject Belgium/Conventions/Cycle Routes
I just mapped the cycleway that goes along the canal from Anderlecht(Brussels) to Halle (no network sign found) and I have already mapped from Ath to the city limit of Geerardsbergen as part of RAVeL Network, the rest until Geerardsbergen center is mapped but without more info. There is a proposed 'network' tag which would fit in this case. (network=RAVeL/Eurovelo/LF/...)--PhilippeP 08:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think these routes are cycle specific .... --PhilippeP 08:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- They certainly are, they have a bicycle logo on the signs: , but I may have seen similar signs that are used for walking, but usually they're shorter than these routes, the signs are bigger and have walking people depicted on them. --- Eimai 13:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I only knew about the non-specific ones so far ... Are these only accessible to cycle/foot or does it go on openroad also ??? Because then it would be a (non-physical) route instead of a cycleway --PhilippeP 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I may have seen these kind of routes for cars and for motorcycles as well (but never really paid attention to them), but these cycle routes can only be done by bike (or you could probably walk it as well if you don't mind 40-60km walks, but they're not meant for walking). The routes make use of cycleways now and then, and the signs are placed in locations where only cyclists would see it in some places.
- Anyway, possible keys for these routes would be rcn (regional cycle network) or lcn (local cycle network). We need to find a way to add the names though. Could we use "ref=Brialmontroute"? --- Eimai 14:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We should probably find conventions for walking routes as well, but I have no idea if there are approved keys for those. But every cycle route category has a similar category for walking: themed routes with six sided signs, smaller node networks, long distance paths (GR, the paths which are marked with red-white symbols, part of the entire European network). But I'm staying with cycle routes for now, afterwards we can just transfer those conventions to the similar walking routes. --- Eimai 13:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Cycle Node Networks
I've written down how the person in charge of the cycle map (at least, I think he's the one in charge of it) thinks we should map these networks: use the rcn tags, tag the nodes with rcn_ref and network=rcn, use relations for the routes themselves, but do not attach rcn_ref numbers to those relations. --Eimai 13:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
About the question on our page "How to tag shortcuts, alternative roads, routes leading to/from the network": Should we use the convention suggested by Eimai posted on Doorsteek / Shortcut? --vitto 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm asking because, wel, there isn't stated anything officially on the Belgian page (obviously) :-)
- Well, I guess we can answer that question, as that's how it's done now: give alternative routes their own relation, and add the state=alternate or state=connection tag. It's the only possible way since we also need to keep the possible forward and backward roles. Furthermore that method is also used a lot now for both cycle and walking routes, and seems to work nicely. --Eimai 13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll make the changes to the wiki-pages next week somewhere (kinda busy with other things right now). Are the any notable differences with our Cycle Node Networks and those in the Netherlands? Because I would think a common page describing both might be a good idea.. --vitto 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It happens quite often that it's not possible to make just one node the junction in the network. Take for example a dual carriageway on which there's a junction with a road crossing it.
2 <- ------a------ <- 1 | 4 2 -> ------b------ -> 1 | 3
So, we see the junction number 4, with connections to 1, 2 and 3. If a cyclist for example goes from 1 to 2, he passes through "a" and not "b", if a person goes from 3 to 1, he passes through "b" and not "a".
So, how to represent that? I could put node numbers on all points, or just choose something "in the middle somewhere". The latter probably gives better results on the map, but one can get awkward route descriptions. If I come from 1 and am going to 2, and made b the node, it says something like: cross the street from a to b, you've reached node 4, now cross the street back from b to a... --Eimai 13:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- On the map that already has all the nodes that I linked to from somewhere else on the wiki, it seems the nodes are put in twice. This also gives an odd result. Are there actually two groups of signposts on each side of the dual carriageway? Maybe it's best to put two points with the same number twice. I don't think this occurs very often, or does it? Anyway, it's never set in stone. If the choice we make now, doesn't work out well, we can always change it. Maybe it's best to document those nodes extensively in the wiki, so we can easily find them again if we would want to change them later on. --Polyglot 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen quite a number of places. Node 44 near the Kennedytunnel on Linkeroever is the hardest one I've found so far. Explaining it would take too much time, but I think there are actually 5 nodes there, with two different nodes for those who come from the tunnel depending on which node they'll follow next (probably because they couldn't place any signs in the tunnel itself...). Most others are at dual carriageways (and two carriageways crossing gives 4 nodes...), but I've also found one junction which connects two sides of a canal (something like the dual carriageway, but then water instead of grass in the middle :-) ) --Eimai 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Another question: what conventions are to be used for the rcn_ref node. Must the node with this tag be a member of the way(s) which are in their turn member of the connection-relelations? I've made it a separate node sometimes because junctions are rather complex sometimes, and don't have a single point of intersection. A question related to this one: when an rcn_ref-node isn't member of a way (of a relation), does it have to be a member of the relation(s) or not? --vitto 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- My oppinion btw is that rcn_ref-node's shouldn't be nessecarely be part of a way (of a relation), but they do have to be part of the connection-relation(s). --vitto 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the rcn_ref should be added at each location where you would see the junction sign. Usually this is only one location but at complex junctions you'll have to add two, three or even more rcn_refs with the same number. I'm aware it's causing some headaches for renderers (but they have some collision detection so they don't draw overlapped numbers), and it can also be difficult to keep up with all the necessary forward/backward members of each route relation from that junction. But from a database viewpoint, programs will have a difficult time connecting all the nodes with their correct locations if the nodes are completely disconnected to the ways, so it just makes more sense. The renderer can be fixed if it displays the same number several times (and note that you may sometimes want to see all of them, there are junctions here where the same node appears on locations 500m apart (node 40 south of the Antwerp city center for example).
- As for adding the nodes to the route relations, that question hasn't been answered yet. Almost nobody is doing it, but some are suggesting it. --Eimai 13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- By "each location where you would see the junction sign", I assume you mean the location where three (or more) roads connect to a single node. In Limburg there are usually more then 9 traffic sings per junction (for every direction: one before the junction, one after, and one at the junction itself). I still don't totally agree with your arguments for the moment, but it isn't an easy problem to solve. I've just looked at junction 40 south of Antwerp which makes things even more complicated :-) --vitto 01:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
How do you deal with a junction which is basically a roundabout (with more then 3 roads joining)? --vitto 01:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, roundabouts can be fun, here's an example of a very large roundabout: there's a route to the north, to north east, and south: . So tag where the actual junction sign is (I'm not interested in the "you are approaching node X" signs). So say you come from the north there from 77, you'll see the sign where you reach the roundabout, and it will show: "34: straight on, 11: around the roundabout (with arrows of course)". And then it's a complex network (well, it looks complex and it certainly is some work to tag it all correctly, but it's really straightforward and quite easy), of adding all the relations with their roles to the little pieces of the roundabout. So the idea is basically: tag the route until the junction sign, and then have all next routes start from that junction. This is a more straightforward roundabout: , but the idea is best understood in an easy case like this  (don't look at the arrows on the cycle map layer, they don't render like they should when they overlap). --Eimai 11:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Themed routes starting points
Would anyone have an idea how to tag the starting points of the themed routes? While it's usually possible to start wherever you want on the route, there is a marked starting point (where there's usually a place to park your car for example, and which is sometimes a symbolic place in the route). I do see a problem though to know where these starting points are: is it possible to know their locations without referring to the official route maps? --Eimai 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have been reading some descriptions of cycle routes and I was thinking about the same problem. Since it's a point, the most logical thing to do is to put it as a property on a node. Maybe as a note. Whatever we decide upon is fine, as long as we all do the same. I don't think there is a precedent.
- I wouldn't worry too much about using information that is publically available on a site like fietsenmoetkunnen.be or on the various tourist information sites. This is a fact that they can talk/write about, but they can't claim copyright on it. It may make sense to double check the fact, instead of relying on only one source, but it's unlikely such a magazine/tourist office is going to publish that kind of information in order to be able to use it as an Easter egg later on.--Polyglot 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to come up with some new tags for starting points, alternates, connections and probably some other things... Anyway, if you know the starting point it can be quite obvious to see it is one: I did the Eddy Merckxroute this weekend (sorry, no GPS so no route in OSM :-) ) and it starts from a small square in Ruien, and you see a sign there showing you the way that isn't visible if you were just following the route. But you're probably right that it won't get us into any legal trouble. --Eimai 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the mushrooms (paddestoelen, like ) are a network as well? I always thought they were only for giving cyclists on the cycle node networks some orientation, but it looks now like the mushrooms don't belong to the cycle node networks. If they form a network as well, we're running out of network tags (and we need to be creative as well to tag them)... --Eimai 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've been reading about them, today by coincidence. As far as I understood they are a phenomenon of Dijleland, roughly the zone between Leuven and Brussels. The idea is to make them part of the node network. I think this would be losing information somehow, if they happen to do that by taking away the place names they are pointing to now.
- So it seems like we have 4 levels of cycle networks here in Belgium. OTOH, we could use the same level (rcn) we use for the cycle node networks. The nodes are rather far apart here in Vlaams-Brabant. A lot farther spaced apart than what I saw in Limburg and Antwerp so far. --Polyglot 21:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, the ones I've seen were in Antwerp province. Information about them is sparse, but it looks like they're just orientation points for the cycle node networks. The Dijleland network on the other hand seems to be a separate network. but Vlaams-Brabant lags a bit behind in the cycle node networks compared to other provinces, so it may change in the near future when it's also introduced over there. --Eimai 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- If/when they get absorbed by the cycle node network some information will be lost. Pointing towards a number is less informative than pointing to a place name. Anyway, they probably will be merged, so we can use the same rcn tags for them.--Polyglot 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so it'll probably become a cycle node network some day, so we can just make routes for them now between all mushroom junctions, probably resulting in a lot of meaningless lines on the cycle layer :-) --Eimai 13:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- To me they are not meaningless. In fact the directions on them tell you more than the numbers of the nodes. They point to a very specific place, usually a town center. I also get the impression the mushrooms are often coinciding with the nodes of the cycle node network.
- I also found those same style mushrooms in De Kempen around Herentals. --Polyglot 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
To finish the last kind of network which is visible on the picture at  (I like that picture... 2 LF-routes, a cycle node network junction, a cycle mushroom, a themed route, with a shortcut for that themed route, a note on how to get to another themed route, and a mountainbike route all in one picture, would be a great picture for this page :-) ). So, mountainbike routes ... Should probably have specific mountainbike network tags which aren't made yet. But let's start thinking about it: routes have three colours: green for beginners, blue for more advanced mountainbikers, red for the best ones (I don't think it's a matter of difficulty, blue and red routes just make a green route longer, at least in the routes which I've seen, a route always has at least a green loop). There's a fourth colour yellow for connections to different routes. So now we only have to introduce tags for them... I remember some kind of discussion on the mailing list, I should look it up some time. --Eimai 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed we would need an other set of tags for them. Just bring it up on the international/English mailing list or make a proposal page on the wiki --Polyglot 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to assign some proper tags for the RAVeL routes, so they actually show up properly. It looks to me like they're usually considered on the same level as the LF-routes and the Rando Vélo routes, so I'll propose this:
The RAVeL4 route, which runs from Hensies to Lessines.
Since they can also be used for walking, horse riding and skating they can get other network and route tags as well later on, when someone defines proper route tags for those. --Eimai 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since there were no comments, I've retagged RAVeL4 like above now. --Eimai 15:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's me that mapped the RAVeL4 so far, but I did only the physical part of it, your mods seems OK :) and BTW as I was reading the RAVeL official site, I discovered that horses are not welcomed on RAVeL4(just for the info) --PhilippeP 08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently remembered that Antwerp, due to its "masterplan" and all infrastructure works, created a new cycle network to get through the city. It was signed by painted marks on the road. A small map of this network can be found here.
Now two questions I have: I have no idea if this network is still maintained (i.e. if the painted marks are still being repainted -- I haven't noticed these signs for years now...), whether it's temporary only, so does anyone know more about it? Second question of course: how to tag if the network will stay? Would lcn be overcrowded with this in it as well? --Eimai 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Note btw that many parts of the routes are "mappable", which means that the painted signs are still somewhat visible here and there and that common sense can fill in a few blanks. THe problem is that in certain places the signs have completely disappeared and at connection points between two routes this is a big problem for mapping them over there. --Eimai 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Itinéraires Cyclables Régionaux - Gewestelijke Fietsroute
I wonder if it's better to classify these as "lcn" instead of "rcn", since it resembles the London network (and lcn also means "london cycle network" somewhere in the wiki...).
There's something similar in Antwerp as mentioned above (though the signs showing the routes have almost become invisible in some cases) and I was thinking about lcn for these (but haven't decided yet if it's worth mapping) --Eimai 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The cycling map makes the difference between ICR-GFR and local bicycle routes, see . It’s true that the ICR-GFR aren’t really long compared to those from other region, but I think it alright to tag them rcn. --Moyogo 07:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Mountain bike route level
Can that difficulty level be found somewhere on the signs or so? It looks quite arbitrary to me, so I wouldn't use it if it wasn't clearly defined somewhere... --Eimai 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Using network=lcn doesn't really look right to me. I thought it was route=bicycle network=mtb in other countries, but I'll need to check. Using the lcn network isn't appropriate here IMHO. --Eimai 15:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
How to identify the unpaved sections of the cycle node network
Hi, I have this request, hoping that this forum is still alive. On the flemish cycle node network, some sections are unpaved and by this unsuitable for road bikes. See orange sections on http://www.fietsroute.org/Cycling_Planner_Belgium.php. This information is not yet available on OSM, where the cycle routes are tagged as "route=bicycle" on the full path between two nodes (Remark that the unpaved section is usually only a part of such path.) How can we add this information, so I will easily avoid those routes when using my road bike ? Thanks !