[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 08:27:46 UTC 2020


Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>:

> 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.
>

You would be surprised... but that wasn't the issue. THe examples show no
extrapordinary  ways or routes. Characteristics of ways in a route are
tagged on the way, such as surface, elevation, speed, access, oneway.
Characteristics of the whole route are tagged on the relation. I would only
create a route relation for a route that's actually visible, i.e.
waymarked. For bicycles we have route=bicycle, for mtb we have route=mtb.
Chracterizing routes as especially suited for or designated as touristic or
speed cycling, if that was a common thing visible on the ground, no
problem. I am sure examples can be found. I am not sure it is enough to
warrant tagging.
On the other hand, if someone or a group of cyclists intend to tag the
visible or obvious (?)  purpose(s) of routes in a particular country in
more detail, and makes a nice special interest map of it, fine! I would not
expect random mappers around the globe to map it, though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200110/30ed6574/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list