<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Di., 30. Nov. 2021 um 13:19 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>:<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><div>Nov 30, 2021, 09:00 by <a href="mailto:voschix@gmail.com" target="_blank">voschix@gmail.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="auto"><div>At the risk of repeating myself: can we acknowledge that having different tagging for commuting cycle routes as opposed to touristic cycle routes would be a big advantage for routing/navigation?<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">oh, I agree<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>agreed</div><div><br></div><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><div dir="auto"></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"> And can we acknowledge that de facto in many European countries and in the US the existing cycle routes in OSM are mostly touristic?<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I also agree<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I have no idea about the numbers, but "mostly" implies that there are at least also others in the same cauldron.<br></div><div><br></div><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><div dir="auto"></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"> Hence can we agree on a different tagging scheme for commuting cycle routes?<br></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>At this point, given that we have been mapping for decades and not cared so far about this aspect of cycle routes, we should introduce a tag for both kind of routes, touristic (scenic?) and not. Actually, as I would see the "normal routes" as defined through the absence of scenic qualities, my favorite approach would be detailing the description of the scenic properties.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div><div>Martin<br></div></div>