[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
joost.schouppe at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 18:51:05 UTC 2020
Thanks for all the replies.
Just a note on verifiability; always assuming they are waymarked:
- for car routes, it's pretty obvious whether it's part of a functional
network (say A8 or E40) or a pretty network (with a nice name and a
- for cycle networks, in the cases I know, the operator has clear vision
documents as to the purpose of the network (recreation VS commuting VS
mountainbiking). When this information is not available in a
straightforward way, or it just doesn't have a specific function, you just
don't add the possible subtag.
This in itself is an argument for creating a subtag rather than new values
of the existing main classification. Since the function of the routes
overlaps between both cycle and car routes, I think I'd prefer a tag that
can be used on all route relations.
Op ma 13 jan. 2020 23:13 schreef Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:
> Bicycle or hiking routes in OSM that are not trailblazed have one big
> drawback: they confuse data end users (they are looking for the signs, and
> if there are none, think they have taken the wrong turn.
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, 19:21 brad, <bradhaack at fastmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
>> facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
>> Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in a
>> visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite training
>> loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.
>> I think this is an overreaction. There are many routes that meet the
>> wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or
>> marked. I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, but
>> that is only a minor annoyance.
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux <
>> florimond.berthoux at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
>>> trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of
>>> « Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
>>> should remove that tag, don't you think?... »
>>> You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
>>> intersection of those routes ?
>>> I doubt that.
>>> This is how the Wiki define a route:
>>> « A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
>>> predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
>>> people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
>>> numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
>>> So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
>>> « A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
>>> travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
>>> consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »
>>> And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.
>>> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> > > 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
>>> > +1
>>> > I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
>>> > and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
>>> > http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
>>> > I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
>>> > owned a car for 9 years.
>>> > So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
>>> > are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
>>> > training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>>> > But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
>>> > a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
>>> > properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>>> > I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
>>> > improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
>>> > there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
>>> > hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
>>> > full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
>>> > routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
>>> > some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
>>> > tell them apart.
>>> > If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
>>> > designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
>>> > that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
>>> > are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
>>> > can't tag the distinction.
>>> > Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
>>> > other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
>>> > data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
>>> > single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
>>> > canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>>> > - Joseph Eisenberg
>>> Florimond Berthoux
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging