[Tagging] The concept of "audience" (commuter, tourist...) in bicycle routing/neworks

[Volker Schmidt]

I don't think that we are mapping vague recommendations when we state that
a route is for cycle tourists.
Even though I can only speak for the Italian cycle routes and for Eurovelo,
these are definitively nearly all conceived as tourism products. They are
designed as such, they come with corresponding documentation. They are
signposted on the ground.
Admittedly, there are a few exceptions, which we try to correct, when we
detect them.
It is obvious that there will be cases where a scenic bicycle route is also
at the same time an efficient and safe commuter route. Think of ex-railways
or waterway sidepaths.

And there are bicycle more-or-less-super highways, in some countries more
(DK, NL), in other countries much less (IT, where many "cycle" routes are
largely or entirely foot-cycling routes).

And then there are many roads (in the wider sense) that are suitable for
cycling, both tourist and commuter, that are noy signposted in any way.
Their suitability is detectable for routers by analysing their properties
(provided they are properly tagged in OSM)




On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 10:23, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 12/6/21 02:43, stevea wrote:
> > One concept I'll toss out is "audience."  (Maybe bicycling_audience).
> Once it's clear to me (and others) whether we're talking about a
> "collection of ways," (distinct from a route?), a route, routes, a network
> or networks (that is not yet clear to me), syntax might be fashioned for
> "this."  It might be :audience bolted onto network, it might be simply
> key:audience=* or bicycling_audience=*, with initial sensible values of
> [commuter, tourist].  I mean if that "relatively new concept not already
> well-articulated" actually tags for what you mean, well, we're onto
> something.
>
> If I may offer a word of caution here - let's take care not to get
> carried away into mapping "recommendations". It is our job to map the
> facts, and the routing engine's to use these facts to generate
> recommendations for various audiences. It is not our job to come up with
> recommendations ("why, this bicycle superhighway is probably more aimed
> at commuters so let's invent a tag for this").
>
> In the cycling department we're already prone to deviating from our
> standard "map what's on the ground" mode (by marking infrastructure as
> being part of some cycling network even if the only evidence of that is
> a map published by a cycling association, and not actual signage).
>
> Let's just keep that in mind. Mapping anything that is not clearly
> visible on the ground will always require a very good reason.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211206/94ea1980/attachment-0001.htm>