Talk:WikiProject Belgium/Conventions/Cycleways
Suggested cycleways
What should we do about pavements that are coloured red and slightly raised from the road. If we assume that tracks are highly recommended for cyclists and lanes some what less, I am inclined to call pavements "lanes" because they are relatively dangerous: - they are very close to the road in practise - many of them are in residential areas and they run the continuous risk of a driver reversing into them without looking
- Hi User:Hotbelgo. It would be great if you could post some pictures to discuss this further, since I am not sure what situations you are reporting about. If there is no designation for cyclist then I don't know is cyclist are welcome on that form of pavement you describe --ivom 16:11, 13 June 2011 (BST)
Consensus for one-way streets
It seems like the whole block with "There is no consensus to tag one-way streets with a two-way cycle lane" should be updated.
Looks like oneway:bicycle=no is the preferred way nowadays. That should clarify instructions. Bxl-forever (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've also seen these tags used in that case: cycleway:right=lane, cycleway:right:oneway=no, oneway:bicycle=no —M!dgard (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Confusing note
@Bruno1460: regarding "Note : highway=cycleway is different from fietspad/piste cyclable (cycleway=*)": A highway=cycleway is indeed not the same as a fietspad, but neither is cycleway=*. Nor do I see the relevance in that section. highway=cycleway is routinely used to map cycle paths separated from the main road (vrijliggende fietspaden). Conversely, cycleway=* always denotes a fietspad along a road, but is not the only way to represent a fietspad, so it's confusing to write "fietspad (cycleway=*)".
Since the note is bound to add more confusion than it clears up, I've removed it for now. —M!dgard (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand, but we still have another confusion :
The current text gives the impression that both highway=cycleway and cycleway=* are directly linked to the Belgian law on ‘fietspaden’ad hence to the panels D7-D10 but these are only applicable for cycleways along roads. Because of that, it is impossible to cover cycleways which are completely separated from roads and for which the signs D7-D10 don't apply.
In that case, I’d change the paragraph ‘Basic information’ as such :
(link to : Cycleway - OpenStreetMap Wiki)
Cycleway may refer to
• The highway=cycleway tag - for separate cycle ways
• The cycleway=* tag - for cycling infrastructure that is an inherent part of a road
In Belgium, the tagging cycleway=* should be used only in presence of the signs D7-D10. And the tagging highway=cycleway should be used only in presence of the following signs:
- D7-D10 if the path is drawn independently from a road (normally in parallel)
- F99a or C3 + excl. bicycles
The tagging highway=cycleway also requires some constructive characteristics (to be refined, but I’d include that the surface is hard and smooth (asphalt or tiles) and that it is mainly used by/designed for bicycles (frequency of use, part of cycle routes, RAVel, fietssnelweg etc…). These extra conditions are certainly relevant with the signs D9 or D10 as well.
What do you think about that ? --Bruno1460 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- > In Belgium, the tagging cycleway=* should be used only in presence of the signs D7-D10.
- That's not true. A paint-only cycle path next to a road also gets cycleway=*, and there's even cycleway=shared_lane for i.a. fietssuggestiestroken.
- For the confusion, it's easier and clearer to just choose another word on this page.
- For the redefinition of highway=cycleway that you're proposing: redefining tags is a very bad idea, since the existing data that doesn't conform to the definition. For hard and smooth surfaces, we have tags already, which any decent bicycle router should take into account.
- For the traffic sign requirement: this is how it's done in Belgium, but try to write it clearer. —M!dgard (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I changed the Basic Information to make it clearer and moved the discussion about how to differentiate highway=cycleway from highway=path. Pls note that I based my proposal on what I saw o nthe mapping itself (purpose built RAVels and fietssnelwegen are ussually tagged highway=cycleway today). I guess if we are OK, we'd best clean up and synthetise this conversation for the future. --Bruno1460 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is still a lot of work to do to make the document less confusing. Right now a distinction between "part of road"/"not part of road" is introduced but never used.
- > clean up and synthetise this conversation for the future
- The document should be the synthesis; synthesizing discussions is a lot of work and never done as far as I know. —M!dgard (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)