[Tagging] Cycling infrastructure routes (was Re: cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?)

[Flips]

I like the railway-input from Minh.
Separating the net from the routes.
I could imagine to continue using route=bicycle as it has been used mostly so far for named or numbered (recreational) routes and introducing route=bicycle_net for the big city or district-networks and route=bicycle_higway for the fast tracks as existing in different places.
Like this the network-tag can still be used as before.

Am 30. November 2021 19:51:33 MEZ schrieb Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>:
>Vào lúc 02:58 2021-11-30, Brian M. Sperlongano đã viết:
>> 
>> In the US, I even struggle to come up with a clear definition of what 
>> counts as a "route" for cycling.  Certainly our signed and numbered "US 
>> Bicycle Routes" are routes, but there are many, many dedicated off-road 
>> bicycle paths that extend for considerable distances while carrying a 
>> common name (and would be mapped as multiple ways based on length and 
>> changes in attributes).
>
>If we were to strictly apply the standards we use for roads, then we'd 
>nix the route relations for dedicated bikeways that aren't part of 
>designated routes. On the other hand, that's distinctly unhelpful for 
>mapmaking, since from a user perspective, the dedicated bikeways are 
>often more usable routes (in the ad-hoc sense) than the designated routes.
>
>The current approach of representing them all as route=bicycle relations 
>gets messy as dedicated infrastructure gradually becomes part of 
>designated routes. For example, the Little Miami Scenic Trail in Ohio 
>[1] has a well-known identity, so we made it into a coherent network=lcn 
>relation. [2] We need a route representation because it unfortunately 
>still has a couple of on-road gaps, as well as a short segment with a 
>different local name. [3] People still follow the named bikeway instead 
>of the concurrent U.S. Bike Route or state routes that are more 
>fragmented. This relation is distinguished from those routes by the lack 
>of cycle_network=*. None of the network=*cn tags fit well, but there's a 
>pro-forma network=lcn on it. Maybe in time it would become informal=yes 
>and eventually be deleted.
>
>Rail mappers take a middle ground by distinguishing between 
>route=railway for the railway infrastructure versus route=train for the 
>services that use it. For example, in the San Francisco area, Caltrain's 
>route relations [4] overlap with a route relation for its dedicated 
>trackage. [5] An analogous solution for bikeways would be a 
>route=cycleway relation for a dedicated bikeway that's known by a 
>particular name. It might be a better way to model bike boulevards too.
>
>[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226227939
>[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/53754
>[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/847384735
>[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9606321
>[5] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7916804
>
>-- 
>minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20211201/1184ce00/attachment.htm>