[Tagging] cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

[s8evq]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 19:31:25 +0000, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> As stated by others, it's the decision of the rider that defines why 
> they're using it..

Absolutely, but we're not interested in mapping that. That's impossible. Instead, we want to map how the infrastructure is _intended_ to be used!

Perhaps some examples would clarify. Here in Belgium, a LCN touristic cycle route is designed to be between 40 or 60 KM in a loop. It's planned to have at least one good car parking on the way where you can drive to and start your tour. And a lot of times the people who designed these routes make sure you for sure pass by a bar or restaurant on the way. The roads are chosen to be scenic, sometimes in a certain theme, sometimes not. Almost 100% of the route goes over existing roads. Roads are chosen to have as little as possible car traffic. Maps of the routes are for sale in tourist offices. 

On the other hand, 'fietssnelwegen' are designed for functional / commuter usage. They are designed with speed and efficiency in mind. They connect big cities. A route like this could for example take a service road that goes along a train track. Or they would go along a busy highway, as long as there's a safe separate cycleway. Efficient, but not really fun for a tourist. The people who design these routes try to avoid car traffic, road crossing, but choose the shortest routes. 

To counter previous arguments, this distinction is very clearly communicated by the different organization designing these routes. It's not something a mapper would subjectively have to guess. To conclude, again, we're not tagging how a route is used, but how the route is intended and designed to be used.