BEL B201

[panda80]

OSM shows a B201 between R0 and N282, on the west side of Brussels. I think it should be added to HB.

[michih]

I didn't find any B201 on Sep 2022 GSV. However, OSM and GM indicate the road number. That was the minimum criterion for adding N roads in Belgium. I think I'll add the route in the coming days.

[si404]

I didn't find any B201 on Sep 2022 GSV. However, OSM and GM indicate the road number. That was the minimum criterion for adding N roads in Belgium. I think I'll add the route in the coming days.

it being unsigned would be why it wasn't added originally. Worth checking that whole belb system to see if there's other routes that also ought to be added.

[michih]

Yep, I should check. btw, I started to review BEL yesterday. I'm already through the exsting A, B, E and R routes. I remember the nightmare when I drafted the N road system....

[michih]

I didn't find any B201 on Sep 2022 GSV. However, OSM and GM indicate the road number. That was the minimum criterion for adding N roads in Belgium. I think I'll add the route in the coming days.

No, minimum criterion was indication on OSM or GSV.

it being unsigned would be why it wasn't added originally. Worth checking that whole belb system to see if there's other routes that also ought to be added.

I've checked all routes:

DRAFTED ROUTES:
- `B101` is indicated on OSM + GM + signposted on 2023 GSV
- `B401` is indicated on OSM + GM + signposted on 2023 GSV
- `B402` is indicated on OSM + GM + signposted on 2023 GSV
- `B404` is indicated on OSM + signposted on 2023 GSV but R43 on GM
- `B501` is indicated on OSM + GM + signposted on 2023 GSV
- `B602` is indicated on GM + signposted on 2023 GSV but no number on OSM

And:

NOT DRAFTED ROUTES:
- `B102` is not indicated on OSM nor GM, signposted as R1 ramp on 2023 GSV, length: 0.8 km http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.218373&lon=4.360870
- `B201` is indicated on OSM + GM but no number on 2023 GSV, length: 1.7 km http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.819506&lon=4.271439
- `B202` is indicated on OSM but no number on GM nor signposted on 2021 / 2022 GSV, length: 0.7 km http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.813690&lon=4.302282
- `B403` is not indicated on OSM nor GM, signposted as R4 ramp on 2023 GSV, length: 0.8 km http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.999065&lon=3.772768
- `B601` is indicated on GM + signposted on 2023 GSV, but no number on OSM, length: 1.2 km http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.526353&lon=5.920064

To be consistent with N routes, I'd add B201, B202 and B601 but omit B102 and B403.

Any objections?

[michih]

I've also checked the R routes. All existing belr routes are indicated on OSM and GM, except of:

- `R27a` is indicated on GM + signposted on 2023 GSV but no number on OSM
- `R55` is indicated on OSM + signposted on 2021 GSV but no number on GM
- `R72` is indicated on OSM + GM, full ring only on GM what is not confirmed by GSV (was recently truncated to what OSM is indicating)

NOT DRAFTED ROUTES:
- `R11a` is indicated on OSM but not on GM nor signposted on 2021 / 2023 GSV  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.172509&lon=4.393576 (assumption: OSM is outdated)
- `R36y` is indicated on OSM + signposted on 2022 GSV but no number on GM http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.831977&lon=3.254732
- `R51` is indicated on OSM + GM but is not signposted on 2023 GSV; signposted as `N588` at south end where it was signed as `R51` from 2017 to 2021; Geoportal does also indicate `N588`
- `R73` is not indicated on OSM nor GM nor signposted on 2021 GSV

I'd add R39y and N588

Any objections? If not, this thread would be precedent for my upcoming beln rework.

[Duke87]

OSM is not an official source and what does or doesn't appear on it can change at editors' whims. I wouldn't treat that as relevant.

There is an official list of routes here, and it does include both B102 and B403. If it doesn't matter whether a route is signed or not, they should be in.

[michih]

OSM is not an official source and what does or doesn't appear on it can change at editors' whims. I wouldn't treat that as relevant.
There is an official list of routes here,

I know the document from wegenwiki. Is it "official"? It's dated 2002-04-25. I think there have been changes in the past 20 years. Minimum due to construction. The document does also not indicate any source.
Nonetheless, I've gone through wegenwiki / wikisara route lists for existance when drafting beln system. Then, I'm gone with wegenwiki* article map (if available) + OSM + GM about routing. If it differed, I checked GSV. If wegenwiki mentioned a route but I couldn't find it on OSM nor GM, I omitted the route.
Before, I only added routes which were also signposted (GSV check), but I changed my mind later on. There was no objection. I made a log for routes not on the list or not signed in the field. I want to go through that again with my today's experience soon.

and it does include both B102 and B403. If it doesn't matter whether a route is signed or not, they should be in.

I assume that B601 was dedicated (or even built) in the last 22 years. Nonetheless, it is signed (and was since minimum 2009).
R36 and R36y are also not on the 2002 wegenwiki document but there is a wegenwiki article. And they are signed (R36y + R36).

*I'm also often started with wikisara articles to find the route at all back then but later learned that they are often not confirmed by actual signposting in the field (GSV).

[michih]

There is an official list of routes here, and it does include both B102 and B403. If it doesn't matter whether a route is signed or not, they should be in.

Ah, I should read it more carfully You only mentioned the routes I did not want to add. B102 is just a 0.8km long ramp of a R1 interchanges. B403 is a 0.8km long connector between R4 and A10. Their numbers are not visible anywhere in the field, km posts indicate R1 or R4. Just like all connectors and ramps do.

I'm not sure if I should add them.

Does anyone else have a strong feeling on that?

[michih]

I've added  B201, B202, B601, R36y, N588 and N588a: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7135

[michih]

Nonetheless, I've gone through wegenwiki / wikisara route lists for existance when drafting beln system. Then, I'm gone with wegenwiki* article map (if available) + OSM + GM about routing. If it differed, I checked GSV. If wegenwiki mentioned a route but I couldn't find it on OSM nor GM, I omitted the route.
Before, I only added routes which were also signposted (GSV check), but I changed my mind later on. There was no objection. I made a log for routes not on the list or not signed in the field. I want to go through that again with my today's experience soon.

I've entirely reworked all Belgian routes now. Please refer to readme's:

• belb
• beln*
• belr

*only notes to N routes which are not indicated on OSM and GM, or minimum GSV. Routes in HB are minimum indicated on OSM or GM, and another "official" map.