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

[JochenB]

Am 30.11.2021 um 09:00 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
> At the risk of repeating myself: can we acknowledge that having
> different tagging for commuting cycle routes as opposed to touristic
> cycle routes would be a big advantage for routing/navigation?

Auf jeden Fall!


> And can we acknowledge that de facto in many European countries and in
> the US the existing cycle routes in OSM are mostly touristic? Hence
> can we agree on a different tagging scheme for commuting cycle routes?

So will it be. If nothing else is noted on a relation, it will be a
tourist route.

The aim of the proposal was, however, one level of abstraction higher.
The basic network is not primarily aimed at commuters. It is aimed at
cyclists / hikers in general. It is just the statement: These ways are
officially part of the cycling network / hiking network. Here you can
count on better conditions than on ways that are not part of the network.

These paths should be preferred in the bicycle / hiker routers. They
should be shown in General Cycle Maps, but different from tour
recommendations. Purely touristic maps can hide pure basic network
routes in order to focus on route recommendations.

The purpose of the network is to encourage bicycle traffic. It is not
clear whether it was created for everyday traffic, tourist traffic or sport.

The hiking network will probably always be tourist or medical.