Effectivement. En fait, j'avais d'abord tenter de compléter le réseau en autorisant les vélos sur la route, mais je n'ai pas trouvé de possibilité de mentionner une piste cyclable bidirectionnelle côté "gauche", et ai donc rajouter une piste cyclable séparée, en prolongement de celle qui existe plus loin. Après, cela causait des difficultés au niveau du point-noeud 20, qui n'a pas bougé. Je vais supprimer les liens restants au réseau point-noeuds sur la route, est-ce que cela suffira ?

Bonjour Brice,

Je ne sais pas trop quoi penser et au final je ne suis pas sûr non plus que cela aie beaucoup d'importance. Non seulement il est difficile de définir des règles 'objectives', mais en plus il faut tenir compte d'objectifs très variés (routing, existence/qualité de l'infrastructure, politique...). En particulier, il est bien possible que moi, roulant en VTT, je considère ce genre de piste comme tout à fait acceptable, alors qu'avec un bakfiets, c'est autre chose...
-->Pas de problème pour revenir en arrière, je ne comprends juste pas la différence entre côté Est et Ouest. On retire tout, ou on laisse un des deux côtés?

Bruno

Well, starting from the south, the path is covered by D9 signs and effectively segregated, so I see no reason at all not to consider it as a cycleway (as recommended in the Belgian and German wiki).
Starting from the electrical substation until the beginning of the bus stops, it is not any more segregated and covered by a D10 sign + markings on the ground. I'd consider that as path, contrary to the BE and DE recommendations.
North of the roundabout, because I'd expect bicycles to ride slower and more carefully in that section (short length, numerous obstacles around etc...).
In conclusion, it is moreless ok like it is now.
I added a few small changes to match better the situation on the terrain.
Another point : you seem to consider that these paths are too narrow for bicycles. If so, I understand but only if the traffic makes it a problem (for overtaking, crossing other bicycles), but it is not the case (yet). With the current level of bicycle traffic, they look pretty comfortable to me.

Fine with me.
For my understanding, can you tell me why you prefer to use path instead of cycleway in case of doubt.

Whatever you want. For me, this is definitively a cycleway, but indeed it is so short and the lack of signalling makes that it doesn't really matter. Up to you.
All this shows a lack of consistency of the local authorities.
Their intention seems to be that bicycles use both the red lanes and the side paths on the route de Piraumont, or am I wrong?

You know, I like to push for highway=cycleway mainly because highway=path can represent many things and is difficult to assess for bicycle routing softwares. Some people say you need to use path for shared ways because there is no reason to prioritze bicycle against pedestrians, but when it is segregated, that argument doesn't hold.
Otherwise, for which reason would you prefer highway=path?

Hi @bxl-forever,

This discussion is in fact going on for 2-3 weeks already, and I have been asking quite a few specific questions to which your answers are always that I'm wrong. On the other hand, I got feedback that the general principle is ok. There is nothing I can do with such information unless you make alternate proposals, so I changed as I said I would, in part because there were indeed mistakes in my first changes.
So, once again : What is wrong with the language validation rules (spoiler, I used the same scheme as the bus and tram lines) ? And in terms of naming, do you have any different proposal ? If I made mistakes, I'm ready to correct them, of course. There are a few choices I had to make that might be discussed for sure.
If other tags need corrections, I'm ready to help you as well.
FYI, it seems that the relations SZ, SZa and SZb are not signposted (yet), so I didn't have enough informations to improve the naming of them.

I think we were in line on the principle with the person's present. Now I am of course open to some improvements. What do you recommend as separator for language? For circular routes, I already put "ring" before, because it has the advantage of being clear for everybody and the same in all languages. If you have a better proposal, pls tell me.

Indeed it is by accident, sorry. I suppose you made the correction already, now it is ok anyway.

OK, dat is mischien iets beter dan wat ik deed. Ik had wel de rail gezet waarover moet geklimd worden om de Philipsdam te bereiken.

Sorry, I checked as well on the last imagery, and it looked ok. But then you probabaly knew where to look.
Have a nice day !

Super ! Je n'étais pas au courant.
Peux-tu confirmer que la partie flamande est entièrement terminée et balisée jusqu'à la limite de l'agglomération ? Si oui, on pourrait peut-être activer la liaison. Si je vois bien, il y a un tunnel qui manque encore.

Hi Thierry,
1) I'll contact them. Could you tell me what they answered the last time they did?
2) This is just what I'm trying to do. Before I start a new discussion on the wiki with the same story, do you think there is a way to agree on a change around this line ? Do you have a position on the different proposals I already made?

Thanks in advance.

Bruno

The reason is simple: It helps understand the shortcut CK. OF course we can decide to use only one langage each time, fine with me. But there is an official name and it should be used (see :
https://mobilite-mobiliteit.brussels/fr/se-deplacer/velo/choisir-son-trajet/les-itineraires-cyclables-regionaux).

I don't want to start a war, just asking you to consider what's good in my proposals and propose improvements for what's not (like the combination of both languages in this specific case).

Hi bxl-forever,
My intention is not to create a new database, only to improve the OSM map for all users.
As for the name tags, I'm just trying to align their names with the destinations shown on the signposts. Isn't that a better idea than arbitrarily deciding that the name of each relation should be the name of the network?
The translations should be perfect of course, but that can be easily improved.

Bizarre. Vous auriez une photo du 'triangle bleu' ?
En principe, on ne mappe pas de liaison si elle n'est pas signalée sur place, et dans ce cas-ci, elle ne se trouve pas non plus sur aucune carte officielle.
By the way, est-ce que la signalisation a été placée côté flamand? Si oui, on peut activer la liaison de ce côté et le bout de C205 prendrait un peu de sens. Autrement ce n'est qu'un petit bout d'itinéraire perdu au milieu de nulle part.
La dénomination officielle du F205 est La Hulpe-Bruxelles.
https://fietssnelwegen.be/fietssnelwegen/F205

I understand your point of view, but it does not help cyclists, see our discussion on Matrix. Could you give your answer on the two questions I asked there (about reaching our to the provinces / adapting the rule to accept to consider unmarked routes if and only if they are straight and can be followed end to end without a map? These two relations are in that exact situation : straight, obvious to follow & fully equipped

Bonjour,
Pouvez-vous me dire d'où vient cet itinéraire ? Est-il signalé ?
By the way, est-ce qu'il est terminé/signalé également côté flamand?

Hello Thierry,
Pls have a look at the discussion about this. In this case it is an obvious extension of the F201. Maybe we could use C201 to keep the same logic as for de C3, that's better that what I did.
FYI, I haven't seen the 'C3' route on any map from Brussels Mobility. It should rather be the SZ, but the itinerary is not exactly the same.
Do you have any idea who did the C3 markings and why? If find this a good idea of course, but it might help us understand what's going to happen next.

It means that the cycling infrastructue is present. (https://fietssnelwegen.be/fietssnelwegen/F201) + checked on aerial map. Signposting 'F201' might not be present, but the route is quite evident, and there are other examples (F20 is not signposted except in Ruisbroek, F209 is signposted op de 'Postweg'but not active on OSM.