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

[Peter Elderson]

> Do the signs denote “roads which are suitable” (by pointing “away” from
> them)?  (For bicyclists and hikers?). Do they denote roads which are MORE
> suitable?  (By pointing “towards” them?). Is it really true that roads
> which are NOT so denoted are “LESS suitable” or “NOT suitable?”  (For
> bicyclists and hikers).  Or not?
>

The roads are officially signposted as routes for cyclists, using
destination oriented signing on official standardized guideposts, and
standardized simple waymarks between the official guideposts.

The cyclist is guided over cyclable ways and can expect the same kind of
guidepost further on.

This says nothing about ways which happened NOT to be Chosen for the
standardized destination oriented signposting.

So far, all European countries I have visited have the destination oriented
guideposting system, though not everywhere and not as consistent as in
Germany. I know France has plans to do the same thing, forcing all regions
and cities to use the standardized guideposting for cycling. Of course, the
style of signposting will be different in different
places/regions/countries. The consistent use of intermediate waymarks (the
red or green cyclist logo with just an arrow) is pretty German, I think,
though I have seen it in some other places as well.

For hiking, the picture is more diverse, but the system of "official"
destination oriented guideposts is widely used.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211206/686493f2/attachment.htm>