<html><head></head><body>I like the railway-input from Minh.<br>Separating the net from the routes.<br>I could imagine to continue using route=bicycle as it has been used mostly so far for named or numbered (recreational) routes and introducing route=bicycle_net for the big city or district-networks and route=bicycle_higway for the fast tracks as existing in different places.<br>Like this the network-tag can still be used as before.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Am 30. November 2021 19:51:33 MEZ schrieb Minh Nguyen <minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre dir="auto" class="k9mail">Vào lúc 02:58 2021-11-30, Brian M. Sperlongano đã viết:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>In the US, I even struggle to come up with a clear definition of what <br>counts as a "route" for cycling. Certainly our signed and numbered "US <br>Bicycle Routes" are routes, but there are many, many dedicated off-road <br>bicycle paths that extend for considerable distances while carrying a <br>common name (and would be mapped as multiple ways based on length and <br>changes in attributes).<br></blockquote><br>If we were to strictly apply the standards we use for roads, then we'd <br>nix the route relations for dedicated bikeways that aren't part of <br>designated routes. On the other hand, that's distinctly unhelpful for <br>mapmaking, since from a user perspective, the dedicated bikeways are <br>often more usable routes (in the ad-hoc sense) than the designated routes.<br><br>The current approach of representing them all as route=bicycle relations <br>gets messy as dedicated infrastructure gradually becomes part of <br>designated routes. For example, the Little Miami Scenic Trail in Ohio <br>[1] has a well-known identity, so we made it into a coherent network=lcn <br>relation. [2] We need a route representation because it unfortunately <br>still has a couple of on-road gaps, as well as a short segment with a <br>different local name. [3] People still follow the named bikeway instead <br>of the concurrent U.S. Bike Route or state routes that are more <br>fragmented. This relation is distinguished from those routes by the lack <br>of cycle_network=*. None of the network=*cn tags fit well, but there's a <br>pro-forma network=lcn on it. Maybe in time it would become informal=yes <br>and eventually be deleted.<br><br>Rail mappers take a middle ground by distinguishing between <br>route=railway for the railway infrastructure versus route=train for the <br>services that use it. For example, in the San Francisco area, Caltrain's <br>route relations [4] overlap with a route relation for its dedicated <br>trackage. [5] An analogous solution for bikeways would be a <br>route=cycleway relation for a dedicated bikeway that's known by a <br>particular name. It might be a better way to model bike boulevards too.<br><br>[1] <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226227939">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226227939</a><br>[2] <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/53754">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/53754</a><br>[3] <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/847384735">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/847384735</a><br>[4] <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9606321">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9606321</a><br>[5] <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7916804">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7916804</a><br><br><div class="k9mail-signature">-- <br>minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us<hr>Tagging mailing list<br>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br></div></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>