<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.11.2021 um 18:38 schrieb Volker
Schmidt:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Journey-Oriented Recreational Traffic
guidance is the regular mapping of (mostly) recreational
routes in OSM, provided it's
visible/verifiable (signposted, waymarked). </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>agreed, if "journey-oriented" means "touristic"</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I would not commit myself to "touristy". It can also be a sport
route for mountain bikers or racing biking or a short hiking route
at a rehabilitation clinic, then it would be for a medical
purpose.<br>
</p>
<p>In some large cities there are numbered routes for everyday
traffic, e.g. in Frankfurt am Main. Everyday cyclist should make
particularly good progress there.<br>
</p>
<p>That's why I would rather stick to route-oriented or route
recommendation, because the routes can be recognized directly from
the associated symbols.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Destination-Oriented Everyday Traffic
guidance for most forms of transport is not usually
mapped in OSM. Fact is that it's
present/visible/verifiable in most countries. So yes, it
can be mapped. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>agreed if "destination-oriented" means "efficient"</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Efficient can mean many things and is not very tangible. The
shortest route, the fastest route, the best road surface, the
fewest inclines, the least risk of congestion, the least headwind
... . The person who planned the signs is guaranteed to understand
something different than you. You guarantee something different
from me.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>It really does not matter whether the physical signs
are on integrated guideposts or separate posts or a mix.
It's about what they provide for the traveller: where to
go, where to ride, what way to use, how to get to the
next clue. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>(what are "integrated signposts"?) <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/54/Guidepost_basic_network_and_node_network_and_route_recommendation.jpg"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/54/Guidepost_basic_network_and_node_network_and_route_recommendation.jpg</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>In my view, the guideposts mark the route to take,
not the physical ways. The physical ways can be / often
are completely unmarked for this purpose. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Hmmm. <br>
</div>
<div>So far I have always tagged ways as defining the
journey-oriented hiking or cycling routes by making them
part of the route relations. Sometimes I included signposts,
but as a technical convenience, not for routing purposes.
And as far as I know routers/navigation devices can "digest"
that kind of routes.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The signposts and intermediate signposts contain the information
which ways are part of a route (direction of the signpost, name of
the destinations, direction and shape of the arrow symbols). This
cannot be read from the ways themselves outside. Machines,
however, are not able to map the information from the signposts to
the ways. That's why we do it ourselves using relations or tags on
the paths. <br>
</p>
<p>It's not 100% "on the ground", but that's the only way it works.
It is the same with almost all other route relations.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>It's up to the mapper how to define begin and end of
such routes. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Depends on the type of route: bi-directional A <> B
routes are the most frequent topology (where typically
A>B and B>A do not use exactly the same ways - there
may be oneway stretches that are tagged by forward/backward
role tags. Most of these linear routes can be used both ways
and the mapper is free to decide whether A or B is the
start.</div>
<div>In case of circular routes the mapper is normally free to
pick a beginning for the list ways in the relation.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think it means how to cut the individual connections from a net
(mesh). In a node network, this is hard-defined: The connections
always end at the next numbered node.<br>
<br>
There are no numbered nodes in the basic network, so you could
also map several connections in a relation, as long as it results
in a continuous line without branches. This is particularly useful
when two network nodes are close together so that there would be
relations with only one member.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Mapping all destinations to all other destinations is
not very practical. In this case, mapping
Guidepost2Guidepost seems feasible, and could cover the
whole system of destination oriented traffic guidance
wherever it occurs and whatever form it takes. It's a
hell of a job, but if people want to do it, be my guest!</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Is that not called <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging</a>
?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, but it is only a node network if it is combined with a
certain type of signposting. It is defined that nodes outside have
clearly visible numbers/refs and only the number of the
neighboring node is shown at each node.<br>
</p>
<p>This is often combined with the basic network, where named
destinations are shown. However, these do not name the next node
in the network, but rather the nearest and more distant locations.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Nothing new so far, all of this is being done
already. Nothing is invented here. So what's new?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>If you want to enable data users to provide special
handling of destination oriented routes, different than
how recreational routes are handled, the relations need
a tag to make that possible. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>That is the point I have in mind. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>So, why not limit the discussion (and the proposal
from which it sprouted) to which tag would be
appropriate to distinguish destination oriented routes
from recreational routes?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>YES <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, but please do not use the tourist use as a distinguishing
feature, but rather the route recommendation characteristic, see
above.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>For me, two things are important:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* The tag should not interfere with existing tags
(should not require retagging existing route relations)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>obviously, but this requires a re-definition of the
existing cycling or hiking routes.</div>
<div>Unfortunately we cannot be sure that all existing routes
are "journey-oriented"</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>We can decide that route-oriented is the standard, which in large
parts of the world is the only form of cycling and walking routes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR6AqVtmu4T12_puamFGbet+hffzP3_0+ZrWuS=BJBY8AA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>* The tag should be generic, i.e. applicable to all
modes of transport, in all countries, and all geographic
scopes. It indicates a purpose. The other aspects are
already present in other tags.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>OK also for this. This would also solve the distinction
of tagging for "Route Nationale xyz" and "<font size="2"><span
style="font-weight:normal">Route du vin en Roussillon".</span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-weight:normal"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-weight:normal">Now let's
define the tags and make the whole thing a proposal<br>
</span></font></div>
<ul>
<li><font size="2"><span style="font-weight:normal">journey-oriented,
touristic, recreational. ...<br>
</span></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><span style="font-weight:normal">destination-oriented,
efficient, commuting, ...</span></font></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I also first thought of<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>'signposting=destination'
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>but the example from California shows that these connections do
not necessarily have to have destination-oriented signposts.
Sometimes it's just a sign with a bike on it, without a
destination sign. That’s a lot cheaper. Only a few administrations
have a big cycling budget.</p>
<p>So my next thought was<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>'route:purpose=basic_network'
'route:purpose=route_recommendation'</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<p> or simply:</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>'basic_network=yes'
'route_recommendation=yes'</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>