@Bear-in-a-box:
for your info: your changeset is reverted in the meantime way/1087170589/history

Dag Ruben, heb gisteren nog een paar gedeelten zelf kunnen checken + ook navraag gedaan bij iemand die erbij was op de opening. Het volledige traject is tussen Herentals en Balen volledig bewegwijzerd, dus uw changeset van in september heb ik terug hersteld! :-) In ieder geval, bedankt om het mee op te volgen!

I also spotted the traffic sign where cyclists are asked to dismount. However, this traffic sign has no legal basis
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1224416911593199

Hello Bear-in-a-box, can you explain why cycling is forbidden here?

hello Bear-in-a-box, can you clarify why you changed this way into classified? this is how it looks like: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3489690671286443&lat=50.888983&lng=4.414289&z=1.5&focus=photo&x=0.4460606933943388&y=0.6788692396418508&zoom=0

suggestie voor changeset-comment:
"Humbeekbrug is op dinsdag 31/10/2023 heropend. Tags op brugdek en weg hersteld.
way/10868946#map=19/50.97833/4.39030
way/619825816
Bron: https://www.vlaamsewaterweg.be/nieuws/hefbrug-humbeek-sas-heropent-op-31-oktober"
Indien mogelijk, graag in de toekomst hierop letten. Fijne dag nog!

can you ask your friend to share one picture that shows a signpost?

I added it at the request of a note of mapper @Jhowie_Nitnek.
I asked if the note can be retraced. I will come back to you

1) "Is there a way to communicate with the authorities and convince them that they should take care about signalling?"
-> it's not the role nor the mission of OSM (BE) to convince others or to tell them what to do. We just map what can be verified on the field. This being said, every time we have contact with them, we ask for an update of their signposting plans.
If you want, you can contact them directly:
[email protected]
[email protected]

2) F1 south of Mechelen, F20, F23, F200 ... are all cases where (some) signalling should be present and is not.
If their answer is not satisfying, shouldn't we set rules to tag as complete the parts where the directions are obvious because of the layout of the route ?
-> for that the data model on which we agreed, should need to be modified ... you can always propose modifications
cycle_network=BE-VLG:cycle_highway

As already stated several times, in contrast to the Flemish provinces, the cycle highways on Brussels territory are not yet defined. I tagged the cycle highway 'C203' as disused. Once the cycle highways are validated in Brussels, we can easily add the C203 back.

In contrast to the Flemish provinces, the cycle highways on Brussels territory are not yet defined. I tagged the cycle highway 'C201' as disused. Once the cycle highways are validated in Brussels, we can easily add the C201 back.

bij mijn laatste check up 3 weken geleden, was enkel deel op Geels grondgebied bewegwijzerd. Dus met een simpele revert van deze changeset is de situatie ter plekke juist gemapt ...

ter herinnering

the C3 is a "temporary" (in Brussels this might take several years) deviation of the future cycle highway F3/C3 along the railroad.
This deviation is signposted on the field via signs-> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1241772989796167
and logo's on the ground: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1466842427462280
This is an initiative of the regional Brussels mobility service
For the rest, there are at this moment no other cycle highways signposted in Brussels ...

what do you mean by this part of the F201 is "in service"?
please check the datamodel for cycle highways -> cycle_network=BE-VLG:cycle_highway

Hello Bruno,
Thanks for your intrest in cycle highways.
By principle, the cycle highways on fietssnelwegen.be are only applicable on the territory of the 5 Flemish provinces. The only exception is the C3 (= F3 in Flanders) as it is signposted on the field. This F203 on Brussels territory has no value and it's also not signposted.
You can find more info on this datamodel: cycle_network=BE-VLG:cycle_highway
Can you removed this relation? or put it on disused? Thanks.

Hello Bruno,
Thanks for your intrest in cycle highways.
By principle, the cycle highways on fietssnelwegen.be are only applicable on the territory of the 5 Flemish provinces. The only exception is the C3 (= F3 in Flanders) as it is signposted on the field. This F201B on Brussels territory has no value and it's also not signposted.
You can find more info on this datamodel: cycle_network=BE-VLG:cycle_highway
Can you removed this relation? or put it on disused? Thanks.

Dag Ruben,
De Vlaamse provincies hebben aan OSM België de opdracht gegeven om de fietssnelwegen in OSM up to date te houden. Ik volg dit op.
Hiervoor hebben we een datamodel afgesproken -> cycle_network=BE-VLG:cycle_highway
Belangrijk om in acht te houden is of een stuk fietssnelweg is bewegwijzerd of niet.
Ik ben hier 3 weken geleden nog gepasseerd, en toen was enkel het gedeelte op het grondgebied van Geel bewegwijzerd.
Heb je ondertussen meer info dat er meer dan in Geel zou bewegwijzerd zijn?

Well, I can tell you that both website's didn't update yet their network.
Cycleroute 80-81 is signposted via Drève de Boondael. Here's the proof -> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=796548715388721
Can I therefore ask you to revert your changeset?
For your info, I was involved 3 years ago in establishing the cycle node network in Brussels.
In 2022 the Brussels region decided to modify/update and signpost the network.
Compared to the original network, they did here a modification. I am not very happy with it, but as long as the signs are how they are, we need to map according to the ground truth principle ...

Hello noelbov,
Can I ask you which source you used to update 'cycleroute 80-81'?
Thanks for your reply.