[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Jan 9 22:34:00 UTC 2020
Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
For those that see no need for these classes .. what harm will they do
to the data base?
I am ignoring the 'verification' argument for the time being.
P.S. I personally see no need to specify how a power line is attached to
a pole .. others are quite happy to map such detail. So I have no
objection to there mapping, I will never use it nor map it.
On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
> I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do
> not have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just
> signposted as a bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.
> Best, Peter Elderson
> Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst
> <richard at systemed.net <mailto:richard at systemed.net>>:
> Joost Schouppe wrote:
> > In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> > for routers to be able to differentiate.
> Yes - with my cycle.travel <http://cycle.travel> hat on, I'd find
> this very useful. Just an
> optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.
> I've mentioned on here a couple of times before  that there's a
> road bike
> route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's
> signposted as a
> bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or
> purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is
> unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is
> or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although
> it's a
> signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more
> akin to a
> standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging