Checked on by La rédaction d'ArdennenBelgie.be · Methodology
Purpose of this method
ArdennenBelgie.be is an information guide to the Belgian Ardennes, and more precisely to the Semois valley. We do not sell holidays, we do not rate businesses and we do not try to rank “the best” of anything. Our job is to help a visitor make an informed choice: understand a place, know whether it suits their situation (family, reduced mobility, no car, experienced walker, heritage enthusiast), visit it in good conditions and without harming it.
For that, three questions need a clear answer on every page: where does this information come from? When was it checked? By what criteria was it selected? This page answers the third and a good part of the first two. It complements the general presentation on the about us page and the description of the team on the editorial team page.
Everything below is a commitment of method, not a promise of perfection: we describe what we require of ourselves, and the “Limits” section says what may nevertheless escape us.
The steps in producing a page
Every editorial page follows the same path, from choosing the topic to periodic review.
- Choosing the topic. A topic is taken on when it answers a concrete visitor question and we can support it with public sources. We drop topics for which we cannot find reliable information, rather than filling them with generic text.
- Gathering. We collect the available sources in the order of reliability described below: first the bodies that manage the place or the area, then regional institutional sources, then specialist publications, and only then secondary sources (press, blogs, guidebooks).
- Cross-checking. A factual data point is used only if it is consistent across at least two independent sources, or if it comes directly from the official manager of the place. Where sources conflict, the one closest to the ground and the most recent prevails, and we flag the doubt where necessary.
- Writing. The text separates what is a dated fact (“the site is listed”, “the loop is about X km according to the manager”) from what is the editorial team’s opinion (“the view is open”, “the stretch can be slippery”). Opinions are worded with care and put in context.
- Proofreading. The text is proofread for clarity, spelling, consistency of figures and the absence of unsupported claims. Outbound links are checked.
- Dated publication. The page is published with its date of last check, visible at the top, under the editorial team’s byline.
- Review. The page enters the review schedule described below and may be reopened at any time if a source changes or a reader reports a discrepancy.
What we write from our own observations: when a remark comes from the editorial team’s direct observation in the field (the state of a path, the atmosphere of a village out of season), it is presented as such and dated. We never present as a personal observation something that comes from a third-party source.
Source hierarchy and list
Not all sources are equal. We rank them in four levels, from most to least reliable, and adapt how we use them.
| Level | Examples | Editorial use |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Manager of the place or rule | National park, municipality, DNF for public forests, operator of a site, owner of a monument. | Reference for access rules, opening hours, protection status and closures. Cited and linked. |
| 2. Regional and federal institutions | Service public de Wallonie, VisitWallonia, RAVeL, biodiversity and Natura 2000 portal. | Reference for the regulatory framework, inventories, official routes and listed heritage. |
| 3. Specialist publications | Scientific or management studies, nature-conservation publications, local history books, official maps. | Used to provide context (history, ecology, geology). Flagged as secondary when not from a managing body. |
| 4. Secondary sources | Press, guidebooks, blogs, reader contributions. | Never alone for a verifiable fact. Used to spot a topic or a development, which must then be confirmed at level 1 or 2. |
The bodies we cite most often
- Parc national de la Vallée de la Semois: boundaries, visitor rules, trails and news of the national park.
- VisitWallonia: official listings of attractions, accommodation and heritage in Wallonia.
- Service public de Wallonie (SPW): official regional information: environment, mobility, regulations.
- RAVeL — réseau autonome de voies lentes: developed cycling and walking routes, condition of sections.
- Département de la Nature et des Forêts (DNF): public forests, hunting, woodland access, forestry rules.
- Natura 2000 en Wallonie: protected sites, habitats and species, maps and protection regimes.
- Official municipal websites in the valley (Vresse-sur-Semois, Bouillon, Herbeumont, Florenville, Chiny, Rochefort, Dinant, among others): local regulations, events, works, local contacts.
These are simple external links; no third-party content is loaded on our pages and these bodies do not endorse our texts. When a page rests mainly on one of these sources, it names it in the text.
What we do not use as a source
- Anonymous or unverifiable reviews, including those on booking platforms: they are neither reproduced nor summarised.
- Content supplied by a business that cannot be cross-checked, when it makes claims beyond its own scope (“the oldest”, “the only”, “the best”).
- Automatically generated text without human checking; when a tool is used to help with writing or translation, the result is proofread and verified before publication.
Evaluation criteria for places, activities and accommodation
We publish no numerical scores. We describe criteria, identical from one page to the next, so that two places can be compared on the same basis. These are the ones we use.
| Criterion | What we look at |
|---|---|
| Accessibility | Access by car, public transport, on foot or by bike; parking; gradient; suitability for pushchairs or reduced mobility when the information is available. |
| Real interest of the place | What the visitor concretely sees or experiences, and what sets it apart from neighbouring places. We avoid recommending a site for its fame alone. |
| Authenticity and context | Links with history, landscape and local know-how (slate, tobacco, forestry, farming). A recreated or heavily altered place is presented as such. |
| Season and conditions | Favourable periods, effect of weather, flooding or snow, known crowding, seasonal closures. |
| Impact on the environment | Ecological sensitivity, rules to follow (waymarked paths, dogs on leads, bivouacking), risk of overcrowding. A fragile site is not promoted beyond its capacity. |
| Level of effort and safety | Distance, gradient, tricky sections, waymarking, recommended equipment. We mention what may cause problems rather than keep quiet about it. |
| Transparency of practical information | Availability of a contact, an official timetable, a published price, a verifiable source for the operator. |
| Fit for the audience | Who the place suits best (family, couple, walker, photographer, person without a car) and who it suits less well. |
For accommodation, we do not assess quality of service, which we cannot measure reliably for everyone. We describe the type of establishment, the location, accessibility, the facilities stated by the operator and known constraints (opening season, access rules, applicable regulations), and we refer to the operator or official sources for prices and availability.
Checks by type of content
Villages and landmarks
For a village or a site, we check its status (listed heritage, nature reserve, municipal or private property), the historical facts reported, accessibility and any closures. Historical accounts are compared with local sources or reference works; legends and oral traditions are presented as such and never as established facts.
Nature and protected areas
Statements about wildlife, plants or protection status are tied to nature-conservation sources or the competent authority (biodiversity portal, Natura 2000, DNF, national park). We never announce the guaranteed presence of a species, since it depends on season and chance, and we do not publish the precise location of sensitive sites.
Walking, cycling and routes
Waymarked routes (GR, RAVeL, municipal circuits) are described from their managers and official maps. Distances and gradients are indicative and rounded, as they vary with route variants and measuring tools. We always invite you to check the map or the waymarking on the day and the state of the path before setting off.
Accommodation and eating out
We do not rank businesses. We present categories of accommodation, their local characteristics and how to choose. Prices, availability, opening hours and booking conditions are the operator’s: we do not freeze them in our texts without dating them.
Local food and products
Descriptions of specialities rest on identifiable culinary or heritage sources, on specifications where an appellation or label exists, and on the producers themselves for practical information. We do not claim that a product is “the only authentic one”: we describe its characteristics and context.
Handling information that changes
Some information has no known expiry date. We treat it according to how volatile it is:
- Stable (history, geography, status of a monument): rechecked during periodic review.
- Semi-stable (accommodation offer, existence of a path, walking route): checked at review and at every report, with a pointer to the manager’s source.
- Volatile (opening hours, prices, seasonal openings, closures for works, events): given with a date or a period, or replaced by a direct pointer to the official source, which we do not copy when it is more up to date than we are.
When we give an order of magnitude (a walk’s duration, a gradient), we say so: “about”, “according to the manager”, “for guidance”. We prefer an honest range to an overly precise figure.
Update frequency
The date shown at the top of each page (“Checked on…”) is the last editorial review: a check of sources, links and practical information. The last overall editorial check of the site was on .
Our working rule:
- Scheduled review: pages depending on volatile information, or heavily visited, are reviewed first at regular intervals, with a systematic check before the high tourist season; other pages are revised as topics come up.
- Event-driven review: an announced closure, a change of rule, a new publication by a manager, a reader’s report.
- Honest dating: the check date is updated only when a review has actually taken place, never to give an artificial impression of freshness.
Corrections and reporting errors
We correct errors as soon as they are confirmed. The procedure is as follows: you write to [email protected] with the page address and, if possible, a source; we check with a level 1 or 2 source; we correct and update the check date. A substantive error (access rule, safety, wrong fact) is corrected without waiting once confirmed. If we cannot confirm, we say so and leave the pointer to the official source.
We do not remove a passage simply because someone dislikes it, nor do we change it at the request of an interested third party without checking. We do, however, promptly correct any factual data proven inaccurate, including when it concerns a business.
Independence and partnerships
To date, ArdennenBelgie.be has no commercial partner: no advertising, no affiliate links, no sponsored content, no commission and no benefit in kind. If a partnership were ever to exist, it would be flagged explicitly before the content concerned and this page would be updated. We strictly distinguish editorial content from links to other sites, as described on the about us page. The criteria above apply identically to all places, whether or not a business has contacted us, since no commercial relationship influences how a place or service is presented. The site publishes no customer reviews or ratings.
The publisher is an independent individual. ArdennenBelgie.be does not run the websites of the bodies we cite and is not mandated by them. The site devoted to kayaking, Kayak Belgique, is a separate site; the link is a simple external pointer. No payment or commission is attached to the links we place to that site or to other sites.
Limits of the method
- A small editorial team cannot recheck every piece of information every day: a gap between reality on the ground and a page remains possible, hence the check date and the pointers to official sources.
- We depend on the information published by the bodies concerned: if a source is wrong or obsolete and we cannot cross-check it, the error may end up in our text until it is reported.
- Opinions are subjective by nature. We frame them, but they do not replace your own judgement.
- Safety recommendations are general: they do not relieve you of finding out about the conditions on the day and adapting your plans to your level.
A comment on this method? Write to us via the contact page. Other useful documents: legal notice, terms of use and privacy policy.