[Tagging] Cycling relation misuse
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Oct 12 00:06:45 UTC 2019
On 12/10/19 03:28, Phyks wrote:
> I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
> broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
> perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
> rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
> try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
> "tag to render".
> I'd say we either need subtags to precise and categorize the cycle
> routes or some clear definition in the wiki.
> Here are a few examples of what I mean by "too diverse":
> * Some are racing routes, which have been added to OSM as a cycle route
> but are by no means usable (no indication on the terrain, huge highways)
> outside of the race. See
> for instance (in French), now removed.
> * Some are real roads with an official entity maintaining them (signs,
> tourist maps, official documentation), with varying quality of
> infrastructure but always a legal status. See for instance
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2246847 (very bad infrastructure,
> but official signs in the streets) or
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445738 (tourist road, official
> organism in charge of maintaining it, dedicated and very good
> * Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists, often
> racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes, we might have
> `route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical example is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 (which might actually fall
> into the tag to render category)
> * Some have no official existence, but a practical one. Take
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664028 for instance, this is
> just a (long) cycleway in Paris. There are no special signs, nothing
> special, but everyone refers to it by this acronym, "REV", and it is
> widely known. These are actually very hard to discriminate with the "tag
> to render" and might easily fall back in this category.
> So, in short, I think a clearer definition of what should be a cycle
> route (with regards to an official entity, a widely used name or
> anything else) and some tags for subcategorizing it further for special
> uses (not made for any cyclist) could probaby help a lot!
While motor vehicles have road classifications to say which roads should be preferred cyclists have little.
There are a few 'official' maps (some by councils, cities and some even by cycling clubs) of usually disjointed routes but little to indicate what route to use from A to B. These could be for commuting, sightseeing or touring.
There are the 'racing routes' used by competitive cyclists both during a race and to practice for it.
So I too would like to see some additional tags for cycling routes.
P.S. It is now magpie season in Australia, cable ties are applied to bicycle helmets to keep them away from human flesh ..
More information about the Tagging