[Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sat Oct 12 09:16:09 UTC 2019


Netherlands usage is: the route must have some physical representation on the roads. Preferably waymarked all the way. But long routes tend to use local/regional/national sections as parts, so the waymarking does not have to be the same everywhere. Also, some routes are scarcely or even barely signed, still, when zooming out they are clear trails. 
Personally, I would even allow routes which consist of e.g. a list of places to visit, with a sign at the central square or the main church naming and showing the route. Some sections of Jacob’s trails and other european internation routes work like that.

But, just documentation on a website or a book describing a route: I would oppose that.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 12 okt. 2019 om 04:27 heeft John Willis via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks <phyks at phyks.me> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 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".
> 
> 
> Similar to how bus routes are laid over existing road infrastructure, I think there should be a big distinction between the paths/crossings/roads that are assembled to make a cycling “road", and some route that people have come up with just for exercising that is just some generic road in rural area people go touring on. 
> 
> - Cycling roads/routes for travel/transportation with some kind of documented status with the government. 
> 
> - MTB routes, usually using off-road ways & infrastructure - documented by the maintainer of the route, whoever that is.
> 
> - roads used by cyclists for exercise/racing, with no documentation or signage - usually shared via online route-sharing sites.
> 
> if you are making a map of the cycling routes available, I would assume the first category is the most important, and possibly the only one that should be prominently rendered.
> 
> similar to how we render roads, the prominence of motorways pales to the prominence of lesser roads.  Please include them, but we would need tagging to show the purpose of the route, beyond “network” or what super-relation they belong to. 
> 
> This might be difficult, as the usage probably vary from region to region: MTB routes in Japan are negligible, and dedicated cycling roads abound. Whereas in San Deigo, there are zero “cycling roads” that are maintained by the government, and probably a lot of documented MTB routes in the wilderness parks.
> 
> but documenting & rendering any route that a cycle club enjoys cycling on the weekend? unneeded. a motorcycle club’s favorite route in the mountains is unworthy of a route relation as well.  
> 
> OSM is not an online route-sharing site. 
> 
> here is a “Nikko Loop” route made by some cyclist who enjoys cycling. 
> 
> https://ridewithgps.com/routes/31059198
> 
> This is the job of this other private website (ridewithgps.com) - document and share routes for cyclist users. But Nikko City has no documentation for such a route, and shouldn’t be included in OSM. 
> 
> 
> Javbw
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191012/eaad70fb/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list