[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
ajt1047 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 00:06:46 UTC 2020
On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
>> 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.
> I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
> Hint: Nederland.
Ahem. How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
generally good network of separated cycleways. That isn't true
everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I
tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good
shortcut". An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 ,
where I was on Monday - is an example. It's a public bridleway in the
UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it
too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without
the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of
the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for
walkers never mind cyclists.
Not so far away is
is actually part of a cycle route. The worst of that section is
probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a
normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).
Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other
factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between
Perth and Albany in Australia (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US
More information about the Tagging