[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Andy Townsend]

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 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which 
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 
routes.

Best Regards,

Andy