[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
marc.gemis at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 04:37:06 UTC 2020
I assume those characteristics are mapped on the OSM-ways representing
the roads, not on the relation.
As far as I understand Peter's arguments, the fact that a bicycle
route is suitable for recreation, commuting, skilled MTB'ers and so
on, should be determined from the characteristics of the roads in the
relation, not from some tag on the relation.
If we go back the Joost's original question of cycle highways vs. node
network or local roundtrip routes. Do we need a tag on the relation to
distinguish one as commute and the other as recreational? Where is
this information useful?
Suppose I want a fast commute, can the router give me a ride over a
lot of bicycle highways without tags on the relation? Or can that be
done just by the characteristics of the roads in that relation? Or
because they form an almost uninterrupted straight line next to a
On the other hand, can the system give me touristic routes that allow
me to explore an area, or will it send me over cycle highways which
are not meant for that purpose? A node network or a local round trip
is meant for that.
The original question was how can we tag the difference between a
route representing a cycle highway and a note network. Peter, you
recently worked hard to introduce a new tag to distinguish cycle
networks from other routes. Can we use that tag, with a different
value, for cycle highways to separate them from the others?
But then we do not solve the problems for touristic car routes and for
the examples Florimand gave.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> Best Regards,
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging