[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Warin]

A 'tourist' route would usually target scenery, history the occasional eatery.
It should be 'interesting' to the visitor.
The surface, smoothness is of concern to the sports car driver or the road racing bicycle rider where they want a good road.
For different reasons the tourist in a 4WD or MTB may prefer a far less well developed 'road'.
But both the above groups will be after 'interest' for them in a 'tourist' route.

A 'commuting' route would usually be the quickest way from A to Z without regard to beauty, history etc.
Of no real interest to the user other than to get from A to Z.

Beauty, scenery are not things well tagged in OSM, and not something that would be well evaluated by remote mapping.

The other thing of real concern to bicycle riders is elevation changes.. these are challenging. Bicycle routes usually avoid them, there are those after that challenge though.
Again this is not something well mapped in OSM.

Some will say 'interest' is a subjective thing. Well it is recognized by tourist boards who establish them, provide maps and sign post them.
Those who have used them find some better than others, but again that is subjective.



On 10/1/20 3:37 pm, Marc Gemis wrote:
> 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
> railway?
>
> 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.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> 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
>> routes.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200110/c0a9675a/attachment-0001.htm>