<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>But why does this need special treatment? We don’t do it for any other mode of transport.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Andy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxford@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> 10 May 2012 10:08<br><b>To:</b> Richard Fairhurst<br><b>Cc:</b> talk@openstreetmap.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst <<a href="mailto:richard@systemed.net" target="_blank">richard@systemed.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this<br>thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain?<br><br>cheers<br><span class=hoenzb><span style='color:#888888'>Richard</span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if unresolved, distinction in Utrecht). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>OSM tagging of cycle routes seems dominated by the touristic approach, and this limits the usefulness of the data if you're more interested in utility cycling.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Looking at the Dutch guidance, they define a main cycle route as one that has more than 2000 cyclists per day (other countries might settle for a lower threshold!). These account for about 20% of the lanes/tracks, but about 80% of the distance cycled. At that sort of volume, signposting is a bit irrelevant; it's more down to observing the dominant flows of cyclists (typically reinforced by above-average facilities, though not always). In an ideal world, you'd do proper counts and derive the data from bottom up, but given that it's usually pretty obvious, I think a certain amount of duck-tagging is appropriate.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>