On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ian Sergeant <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:inas66+osm@gmail.com" target="_blank">inas66+osm@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br><div>We're heading towards a day when everybody will have a routing
application on their mobile device or accessible elsewhere. So navigation is a diminishing
issue, and desirability for cycling is an increasing one.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Interesting thought. I don't know if I totally agree - I tend to carry a smartphone, *and* I have a GPS mounted on the handlebars, yet neither of those things is convenient as following actual signs or markings.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div></div><br>If there is no cycling amenity of any kind, then it is just a route? How does it differ from any other just by being signed?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I'm not sure I understand your question. By definition, a route is an abstraction on top of the physical world. "What route did you take to get there" - there's nothing physically distinguishing about a route.<br>
<br>Maybe we're getting confused by unstated end goals. My interest in "routes" is having a map (much like opencyclemap) that elevates bike paths and other signage to the level of highways for cars. "Jump on the X trail, follow that till you get to the Y trail" etc.<br>
<br>I think maybe some other people in this thread are focussing more on a "where is good to ride" use case? Definitely valuable, but is that the primary meaning of "route" in OSM?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If we start including roads with no cycling amenity, then we devalue every other quality cycle route we mark. Because an end user can no longer expect cycle amenity from a marked cycle route they become worthless to most of our urban cyclist users who are looking for just that. Of course amenity can come in many varied forms, so I don't mean cycle lanes.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Could you elaborate on what "amenity" means to you? Me, I'm assuming that if the council has put up "bicycle route" signs, it's because they've determined that that road is inherently better for bikes than some nearby street - both because it's safer and more comfortable, and because it goes somewhere mildly useful.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>However, I accept that things like railtrails, long distance cycle routes, etc are exceptions here - where even poor amenity may want to be included in the route. I'm not quite sure how we distinguish these type of trails where people are trying to fill in the gaps, from some of the just plain stupid mapped/signed routes that pass for cycle routes in some council areas.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"></font></span></blockquote>
<div><br>Well, I guess they seem "stupid" if you're focusing on "where's good to ride". They're totally logical and sensible if you're focusing on "how do I get to point B".<br>
<br>Steve <br></div></div></div>