[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

Florimond Berthoux florimond.berthoux at gmail.com
Thu Jan 9 09:38:07 UTC 2020


I would like also to be able to map four kind of cycle routes : touristic,
commuting, road bike, mountain bike (mtb).
Today we can map mtb and general cycling route (most of them are touristic
though not limited to them).
But unfortunately mtb and cycling routes are split in two kinds of routes.
I'd prefer to have cycle route for every kind of cycling and precise the
type by an other tag (with the possibility to set multiple kind of cycle
route for the same relation).
So what I’m thinking is to add tags to cycle route relation in order to
precise there use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations
tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented

And for general route (and car routes) I’d say that type=road relation is
what you need https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Droad
(By the way the Route des Grandes Alpes in France is also a cycle route
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_des_Grandes_Alpes )

Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 20:24, joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Hi,
> Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational
versus functional routes?
> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes
for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in
France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in
Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those
routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have
"cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting
> In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of
cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate.
> Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off
tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking.
> I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful,
perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something.
> --
> Joost Schouppe

Florimond Berthoux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200109/64e74194/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list