<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">voschix@gmail.com:<div>> Brian M. Sperlongano:<div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Peter Elderson <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:pelderson@gmail.com" rel="noopener noreferrer">pelderson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div dir="ltr"><div><div>5. icn, ncn, rcn and lcn are used for recreational routes</div></div></div></blockquote><div>Says who? <br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div dir="auto">I stated earlier that this is an "in practice" feature, and not documented. It is useful and is used by many routing/navigation tools. <br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">That is caused by fact that most (nearly all) signed bicycle routes are recreational routes.</div><div dir="auto">Not by some ban/limitation to mapping recreational routes.</div><div dir="auto">If some place has signed non-recreational route it is 100% fine to map it as a route.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>True, of course. I meant, in practice most *cn routes are recreational, that's why I think it is not wise to use *cn as a marker for any other fixed kind of route. It doesn't tell the purpose of a route, only the geographical/operating scope and the transport method.</div><div><br></div><div>In Nederland and Belgium, we hijacked rcn to exclusively indicate Node Network. I am glad we corrected that mistake by using network:type=node_network, even if it is not the best self-explanatory tag ever. <br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">Though is it even possible to have "international cycle network" that is NOT recreational?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Why not. Cycling is still evolving all around the world. In Europe, there are Node networks, functional routes and recreational routes crossing national borders, though I think these often classify as regional or national with some borderline branches. Officially Preferred cycling routes often seem to follow a national programme, but regionally implemented and regionally or locally operated and maintained.</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>