[Tagging] EuroVelo tagging

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Mar 5 21:15:26 UTC 2017

I have a route that is
mountain bike and
hiking and

the route=mtb;hiking;horse functions .. at least for hiking and horse 
..(but not mtb on 
https://mtb.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=6!-35.8356!149.48 - change it to 
horse or hiking to see mapped sections of the BNT)

the network tag .. I have no idea on how to do multiple tags on this.

I am thinking of separating this into 3 relations .. but it is very messy.

My thoughts on the EV ... following my thinking on the above are;

Have 2 relations ... on on the EV, the other on the other entity (e.g. 
Bit messy. But each can use the relevant tags without conflict. Those 
who want the national details rather than the international ones can 
have it.

On 06-Mar-17 05:55 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> As EV routes are not managed as single entities, every route is split 
> in pieces managed on a country basis. I know the situation in Italy, 
> as I am involved in regional and national cycle routes here. EV routes 
> are handled by BicItalia which is part of FIAB, the "Italian 
> Federation of Friends of the Bicycle". All EV routes all have also 
> BicItalia numbering (BicItalia routes are ncn), but it is not 
> necessarily the case that the Italian part of a given EV corresponds 
> one-to-one to a BicItalia route. So it makes sense to tag the 
> individual EV routes in one country as one icn and to tie these icn 
> routes in the different countries together by a super relation. This 
> means that any BI route that is also part of an EV is part of at least 
> to bicycle route relations (it typically is also part of lower level 
> routes.
> On 5 March 2017 at 19:38, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net 
> <mailto:richard at systemed.net>> wrote:
>     Europe has numerous international cycle routes signposted and
>     marketed as 'EuroVelo', and these are often mapped in OSM:
>     http://www.eurovelo.com/
>     Unfortunately the tagging is pretty inconsistent, especially when
>     routes are shared with national/regional (NCN/RCN) routes, as is
>     usually the case. Although a relation with 'network=icn' is the
>     convention for international cycling routes, people do sometimes
>     change this to 'network=ncn' and 'ref=EV<...>' for
>     tagging-for-the-renderer reasons. The result is that we have messy
>     and inconsistent tagging.
>     At present the wiki project page doesn't have any tagging guidance:
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Europe/EuroVelo
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Europe/EuroVelo>
>     I would like to suggest that we formalise existing good practice
>     by saying that roads/paths on a EuroVelo route should directly be
>     part of a route relation. That relation should be tagged:
>             route=bicycle
>             network=icn
>             ref=11 [or whatever the EuroVelo route number is]
>     Grouping several route relations together in a 'master relation'
>     is all good (as these routes are often too long for one manageable
>     relation), as is operator/brand tagging to indicate that this is
>     EuroVelo in particular. But I'd like to document the above as the
>     minimum, simplest thing. It seems to be generally accepted and is
>     in line with NCN/RCN tagging.
>     Thoughts?
>     cheers
>     Richard
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170306/4727b0ad/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list