I’d say it is for the very bold (unless it is Car Free Day, a Sunday or public holiday). That said, while not specifically prohibited by signage, is there a point that doing so for safety reasons in the map database (in particular how some routers treat it) is advisable, considering that there are two viable and appropriate alternate routes? Shall I revert it?

I saw the errors on the roundabout at Schillerhöhe after replying to the message from ghostrider44.

Thanks for inspecting it. I was not comfortable editing the relations, in particular because several other bus routes also go through the roundabout.

MfG dB

Hallo, and wishing you also a Happy New Year! I will reply in English to ensure I am clear, as my German is not technically advanced.

Most of this changeset focused on aligning paths and ways, and correcting some alignment issues with several houses and streets. I believe the issue with Route 638 (in beide Richtungen) occurs here: relation/12717930#map=19/48.79399/9.05781 where Obere Ringstraße was split to reflect its actual shape.

I just checked the routing relation and it is laid down correctly on the street. So I guess this is not the issue. I made no other changes to the route other than those I thought were required to split the street and follow the direction correctly.

Please advise so I can make the necessary correction.

MfG dB

The Fix Me tag was in an effort to get another set of eyes onto it. It needed significant fixes. I am more than happy to continue working on it, but I needed to stop for a rest, because I was getting more confused. Perhaps we can divide the effort?

Hi Thierry,
Reference the 'fix me' tag on way/1186980998. I rode my bicycle on this path 4 times over the last two weeks, recording my GPS track with a Garmin Edge 1040 (multi-GNSS receiver). The path geometry as drawn by you is accurate with my tracks. Should we remove the 'fix me' tag?
Cheers, Andy (der B)

Removed it. Verified the specific the marked cycleway for the easterly direction using embedded mappillary images.

I agree, the tiny sidewalk is unsuitable for cycling and there is no sign in the westerly direction. I removed the separate cycleway after riding my bike there last week and noticed there was a cycleway mapped separately despite it not really existing. Using mappilary and google maps street view, I saw some signs marking a cycleway in the easterly direction, so I erred to caution and tagged it as having a bike track for both directions. Should the tagged bike track for westbound travel be removed?

Hi, I have a question. Beside the main street of Avenue de la Sauvagine - Waterwildlaan there is a designated "highway=service road," but then also has the tag "busway." Why don't we identify these features as "highway=busway?" Just trying to understand, and not confuse the mapping. Thanks!

I think the roads under construction need a re-look. Some have been opened now, for example the slip road from Hector Henneaulaan to R0 direction south is now open.

Modification is made. Please check and verify.

Please @Thierry1030 and @bxl-forever, review the changes. Now that the cycle paths are finished, I've attempted to correct their positions (and add additional spurs that were built). The intersection of the roads will need further updating once the construction is complete.

I based the edit on my observations while riding over it today, street level imagery on google that was updated in March, and a GPS track recorded with a Garmin 1040. I see the locational error, though, looking at the more recent imagery. I can’t go back tomorrow. I will go on Monday or Tuesday, and make another GPS record of the remaining cycle tracks. One question: it seems that the roads are improperly placed now, as well, based on the most current imagery. Is this my imagination?

No problem. I must’ve forgotten to do this. Thanks for catching it.

Yes, based on my experience navigating that intersection, and knowledge of the roads and signs, your proposed fix will represent the actual infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians as it exists. I’ve gone ahead and made the changes. As for that node you’ve linked, the intersection is quite complicated for cyclists, but the path (now designated cycle & foot path) on the east side of N227 will permit a cyclist to from Brusselsteenweg and join the cycle path on the not the side of N3. Please advise if there is a routing issue I have missed. Thanks!

Hi, at 4 Arms, there is a cycleway drawn adjacent to N227 on the west side of the street that extends from Brusselsteenweg as it intersects N227. It is feature #1053473710. I think it should be removed. Cycles can proceed from Brusselsteenweg, staying in the bus lane for about 40m, until Tervurenlaan, where they can then join the adjacent cyclepath. Also, joining the currenlty drawn cyclepath I referenced is quite tricky due to the kerb. What are your thoughts?

I understand, however, would it not make more sense to connect the end of Rue du Bois-Henri/Henri Bosstraat with short "cycle path" connections to the adjacent cycle path? (I suspect most routers, like the two I use most frequently, will force the cyclist to continue 50m to Rue du Craetveld where a "U-turn" to come back will have to be taken.) Ave de Versailles is going uphill on the side with the sidepath, and most cyclists (unless on an unrestricted pedelec) will be unable to ride faster than 18-20kph. There is a low kerb (~10cm) separating the cyclepath and street, but it is not an impedance to a cyclist transitioning from the cycle path to turn up Henri Bosstraat. Thoughts?

Beste Thierry1030,

Thanks for the question. I cycle on this route 2-3 times each week (in either direction) to commute to/from my work. The “kinks” that included Sint-Martinusweg and Seven Tommen were the original path of the F3 when I moved here in 2020. But last year the new track (that I labeled F3) was opened bypassing the “kinks” and providing a much faster traveling path with fewer sharp angles. It is indicated now as the official F3 route per https://fietssnelwegen.be/fietssnelwegen/F3#map. To be correct, the extension that was also constructed parallel to Ringbaan (but outside of the airport security perimeter) is also part of the F3.

Sorry I replied in English, I don’t speak Nederlands.

-Andy

Good evening and bonne année à toi. Looking at this area, I saw way/845752209 (way/845752209/history) which was originally a "highway=path" but was changed to a cycleway. Is this correct? Functionally, it would be inefficient and unsafe to cycle on this path, but before I change it, I could not determine if it is designated a cycleway officially. Can you help? Or should I tag it FixMe?

Hi again, do you think that this parking aisle should be split where it crosses the cycle path, and the split part that connects the path to Oeverstraat be marked bicycles=yes to permit cycle routing from the path to the street? Regards, Andy

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I further tagged as private all of the paths and the accesses in this area. I was out exploring and noted that all of the entry points from the public streets/paths are marked private (as you noted). I therefore tagged all of the interior paths and accesses. Regards, Andy