[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Peter Elderson]

Ok let's look at Berlin. I see bicycle routes in and around Berlin: https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=6162&map=12.597273579561199!52.5315!13.4447
Are those routes touristic or commuter routes? How can you tell? I assume these have been mapped because they are waymarked/signposted. Or are you saying there is a network of commuter routes that has not been mapped yet, but deserves to be mapped? If that is the case, how do you see on the road which cycling connections are part of the commuter network?

Btw, I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and manageable.

A city commuter route network, if clearly signposted and with decent covering, certainly deserves tagging and seems very useful for rendering, planning, routing and navigating. I tend to see it as a new type of network,  e.g network:type=commuter_network (tagged on the commuter routes) comparable to network:type=node_network.

Best,  Peter Elderson

> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 19:35 heeft Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> I would like to return to the initial question of this thread, and looking at it from the end users point of view.
> 
> When in a car, I use my navigation device in real time to get as comfortably as possible from A to B to C and so on.
> I may select to avoid motorways, and may give preference to minor roads. But if I want to go along the  Route des Vins d'Alsace , my basic navigation system will not help. In that case I have to follow the signs of the  Route des Vins d'Alsace.
> 
> When riding my bicycle, I use a navigation web site normally off-line beforehand, to get as comfortable as possible  from A to B to Ca. Thai gives me typically the choice t select the bicycle type: road bike, touring bike, MTB. If I want to go along recommended tourist routes I can select a site that gives preference to ways that follow cycle routes (i.e. a route relation in OSM-speak with type=bicycle). The routing algorithm on that site assumes that by selecting a bicycle route in OSM I am on a safer route (because it makes use of bicycle infrastructure where available) but also that the route is more interesting from the tourist perspective.
> But there are - few - cycle routes in OSM that  are purely indicating bicycle commuter routes. Examples: from the routes of the small town Pesaro's Bicipolitana (OpenCycleMap, network map)  to big-city networks like Berlin, Paris, London.
> Than we have traditionally many "bicycle" routes that really are MTB routes (because they have been created before the type=MTB had been defined).
> I would assume that there are road-bike bicycle relations in OSM, but don't know any example.
> So yes, it makes perfect sense to distinguish different bicycle route types.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 09:29, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200111/4dbaef25/attachment.htm>