Help us properly characterize the cycleways of Wallonia

Communities België / Belgique / Belgien (Belgium)
1

At the Service Public de Wallonie, we try to rely on OSM cycleways data to monitor progress in the cycle network, do quality control of public data, and push public data to the community.

Many cycleways however were found to lack sufficient key=values to be properly characterized in the “Belgian highway code” typology. We have identified these objects and created a maproulette Challenge: mpr.lt/c/53563

After checking ground images (mapillary), or visited the area, create or modify OSM object with following suggested tags when applicable.

Feel free to Skip or mark as Can’t complete if you don’t find a solution (leave a comment!). If you are not 100% sure of your solution, mark for review and leave a comment.

Here are the suggested tags for clarity:

Suggested tags for F99a:

traffic_sign=BE:F99a

highway=cycleway

bicycle=yes

foot=yes

horse=yes/no

segregation=yes/no

vehicle=no

access=no

Suggested tags for F99b:

traffic_sign=BE:F99b

highway=cycleway

bicycle=yes

foot=yes

segregation=yes/no

vehicle=no

access=no

Suggested tags for F99c:

traffic_sign=BE:F99c

highway=path/track/unclassified

bicycle=yes

foot=yes

horse=yes/no

speed_pedelec=yes/no

agricultural=yes

motor_vehicle=destination

access=no

Suggested tags for D7:

traffic_sign=BE:D7

highway=cycleway

bicycle=designated

oneway=yes if cycleway is unidirectionnal (default is no)

Suggested tags for D9:

traffic_sign=BE:D9

highway=cycleway

bicycle=designated

foot=designated

segregation=yes (normally yes, sometimes no despite the sign)

oneway=yes if cycleway is unidirectionnal (default is no)

Suggested tags for D10:

traffic_sign=BE:D10

highway=cycleway

bicycle=designated

foot=designated

segregation=no (normally no, sometimes yes despite the sign)

oneway=yes if cycleway is unidirectionnal (default is no)

And if possible these other interesting tags

separation = solid_line, hedge, kerb, bump, fence, bollard, flex_post, guard_rail, jersey_barrier, greenery, ditch, no

width = width in meters with dot as decimal separator

smoothness= excellent, good, intermediate, bad

surface = asphalt, concrete, paving_stone, sett, metal, wood, dirt, compacted, concrete:lane

lit = yes, no, automatic

If the cycleway is rather a path or a track without traffic sign, or with a F99c sign

Please provide information on

tracktype

smoothness

Note that these combinaisons of tags will exclude the objet from spw cartography:

  • IF highway = track AND ( tracktype HAS NO VALUE OR tracktype HAS ONE OF THE VALUES grade5,grade4,grade3 OR smoothness HAS ONE OF THE VALUES bad,very_bad,horrible,very_horrible,impassable )

  • IF highway HAS ONE OF THE VALUES path,footway AND ( smoothness HAS NO VALUE OR smoothness HAS ONE OF THE VALUES bad,very_bad,horrible,very_horrible,impassable )

  • IF access HAS ONE OF THE VALUES customers,private,employees

These cycleways could also be “Piste cyclable marquée”, Bande cyclable suggérée or “Piste cyclable Séparée” mapped as part of a road

PCM

cycleway=lane

cycleway:left=lane

cycleway:right=lane

BCS

cycleway=shared_lane

cycleway:left=shared_lane

cycleway:right=shared_lane

Couloir bus ouvert aux cyclistes

cycleway:left=shared_busway

cycleway:right=shared_busway

“Piste cyclable Séparée” mapped as part of a road

cycleway=track

cycleway:left=track

cycleway:right=track

“Sens Unique Limité (SUL)”

oneway=yes
oneway:bicycle=no

2

From what I see, you are correctly following good mapping practices, i.e. cycleway can be either tagged as part of the road (with cycleway tags) or as a separate way (with highway=cycleway or highway=track).

Can I suggest the following improvements to your scheme:

  1. Do not use designated values and stick to simple yes or no values for access conditions.
  2. For D9 and D10 signs, highway=cycleway + foot=yes should be a synonym of highway=footway + bicycle=yes. This is because we often see urban sidewalks becoming open to cyclists when a D10 sign is added: it is still perceived as a sidewalk where cyclists are guests and not the opposite.

For the exclusion criteria, you can also include access=no.

3

Hi Bxl-forever,

Thanks for this,

I hear there’s been some discussion about the “designated”, is there a final consensus on this?

Concerning the footway, i agree they can be mapped either/or. But as we come from the cycling perspective, we suggested that one, but we fetch anything that has the adequate traffic_sign at the end.

I’ll add access=no.

I keep on refering to your https://multimob.be/uploads/osm-handbook.pdf which is really well done. I hope you’ll keep it where it is forever :-)

1 Like
4

Is a F99 not always maxspeed 30, and allow destination

“22quinquies.1. Ne peuvent circuler sur ces chemins que les catégories d’usagers dont le symbole est reproduit sur les signaux placés à leurs accès.

Toutefois, peuvent également emprunter ces chemins:

- (abrogé)

- les véhicules prioritaires visés à l’article 37, lorsque la nature de leur mission le justifie;

- (abrogé)

- moyennant autorisation délivrée par le gestionnaire desdits chemins ou son délégué, aux conditions qu’il détermine:

- les véhicules de surveillance, de contrôle et d’entretien de ces chemins;

- les véhicules des riverains et de leurs fournisseurs;

- les véhicules affectés au ramassage des immondices.

PS dans le règlement il parle des chemins et pas piste cyclable ?

My opinion: using cycleway users cyclists will accept as evidence that it is for them …but it is still shared use

5

you mean all f99 should be access=destination?
Or only f99c?

6

I think All F99 access=destination. People who have farmland, meadow, forestry, maintenance of watercourses, rangers ect .. This is strictly prohibited on cycleway