Out of ANYWAYS | Safe cycling to school we can see that the routing is avoiding an important section of the F20 fietssnelweg in favour of two roads, one on the other side of the canal and the other a few 100 m on the East. The latter supports a significant car traffic and busses. Something must have been wrong because the F20 is one of the best cycling infrastructure you could imagine.
After analysis, it became obvious that the tagging of the towpath as highway=service was the cause of the problem and that similar issues happen with many cycle routers.
2 solutions:
- Get all the cycle routers to change their calculation rules for a Belgian specificity
- Try to find out why jaagpaden are tagged as highway=service and find an alternative solution
This is the question I’m trying to answer in this document, starting from an analysis of the reality of towpath, then the relevant tags in OSM to finally propose a solution.
I’d be happy to have your position about this. Pls first identify consensus & then focus on potential conflicts. I am of course open to any suggestion.
14 posts - 5 participants
Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-of-towpaths-jaagpaden-fietssnelwegen-ravels/103836