[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Jan 9 22:34:00 UTC 2020


I think;
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 [1] 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
>     touring
>     purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is
>     wholly
>     unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is
>     highway=trunk
>     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.
>
>     cheers
>     Richard
>
>     [1]
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html,
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html
>
>
>
>     --
>     Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200110/8a988939/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list