[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Florimond Berthoux]

Beside my proposal for bicycle subtype route, I read again the tourism wiki
page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism
« Places and things of specific interest to tourists including places to
see, places to stay, things and places providing information and support to
tourists. »
and
« tourism=yes : To add tourist interest to something described by other
tags. »

So, if a route is a thing of specific interest to tourist, I see no good
reason to not tag it with tourism=yes.
(And I don't understand why it shouldn't be used on relation since here
it's the route relation which is touristic.)


Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 20:24, joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational
> versus functional routes?
>
> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes
> for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in
> France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in
> Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those
> routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have
> "cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting
> somewhere.
>
> In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of
> cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate.
>
> Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off
> tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking.
>
> I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful,
> perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something.
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Florimond Berthoux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200115/5e496d87/attachment.htm>