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

[Patrick Strasser-Mikhail]

Am 23.11.21 um 11:16 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
> One important thing (at least for me) that is emerging from this 
> discussion, is an underlying, not documented, assumption that I am 
> making, and that i shared most likely by all of my OSM cycling friends 
> in Italy are sharing, but that some people in this discussion are 
> explicitly not sharing:
> bicycle (and hiking ) routes in OSM are touristic routes. They are not 
> geared towards "the safest and fastest connection".

Just stumbled across some definition of requirements for different 
cyclist profiles in Austria, cited from RVS 03.02.13 Radverkehr.

-----------
Properties and requirements of cyclists in everyday traffic and 
recreational traffic:

A) Destination-Oriented Everyday Traffic vs.
B) Journey-Oriented Recreational Traffic:
- A) drives speedy
   B) drives unhurried
- A) searches for shortcuts if the routes includes detours
   B) accepts routes even if they include detours
- A) targets in dense built-up municipal area
   B) targets outside of dense built-up municipal area
- A) often experienced
   B) may be experienced or unexperienced
- A) drives alone most of the time
   B) drives alone, with family or in groups
   B) can also be a child in kindergarten
- A) drives even in bad weather or darkness
   B) drives only in reasonably good weather
- A) prefers cycling infrastructure and mixed traffic
   B) prefers dedicated cycle tracks
- A) directions only in high level network
   B) route signage and directions
- A) requires fine-meshed network
- A) planing criteria: safety and directness, comfort and attractivity
   B) planing criteria: safety, adventure and recreation value, comfort 
and attractivity
- A) getting there is the reward
   B) The journey is the reward

German original:
ZIELORIENTIERTER Alltagsverkehr vs.
WEGORIENTIERTER Freizeitverkehr
- A) fährt zügig
   B) fährt eher gemütlich
- A) sucht Abkürzungen, wenn die Radverkehrsführung mit Umwegen 
verbunden ist
   B) akzeptiert die Radverkehrsführung, auch wenn sie mit Umwegen 
verbunden ist
- A) fährt eher Ziele im dichtbebauten Ortsgebiet an
   B) fährt eher Ziele außerhalb des Ortsgebiets an
- A) ist meist geübt
   B) kann geübt oder ungeübt sein
- A) fährt meist alleine
   B) fährt alleine, mit der Familie oder in Gruppen
   B) kann auch ein Kind im Vorschulalter sein
- A) fährt auch bei Schlechtwetter und Dunkelheit
   B) fährt nur bei halbwegs schönem Wetter
- A) bevorzugt Radfahranlagen und Mischformen
   B) bevorzugt selbstständig geführte Radwege
- A) Wegweisung nur im übergeordneten Netz
   B) Routenbeschilderung und Wegweisung
- A) erfordert engmaschiges Netz
- A) Planungsgrundlage: Sicherheit und Direktheit, Komfort und Attraktivität
   B) Planungsgrundlage: Sicherheit, Erlebnis- und Erholungswert, 
Komfort und Attraktivität
- A) Der Weg ist die Strecke zum Ziel.
   B) Der Weg ist das Ziel.

-----------

Source: 
https://www.verkehr.steiermark.at/cms/dokumente/12490718_15914779/77c000a3/Bed%C3%BCrfnisse%20Alltags-%20und%20Freizeitverkehr.pdf
Obviously cited from RVS 03.02.13 Radverkehr
http://www.fsv.at/shop/produktdetail.aspx?IDProdukt=e283b686-009d-4cc8-bdf1-8a06fd7fb2a7

This summarizes the tourist/non-tourist aspect for me, both for cycling 
and hiking (well, not so much the everyday hiking...)

> In a simplified way:
> To get efficiently from A-town to B-town I need a router/navigator that 
> evaluates all possible routes from A to B using the relevant way and 
> node properties, plus DEM data from a third-party source, to find me a 
> near-optimal route. Nice landscapes or cultural heritage aspects do not 
> enter in the equation.
> A cycle (hiking) tourist route is a mix, or a compromise between an 
> efficient route and a nice-landscape and culturally attractive route. It 
> maybe also taking into account the presence of suitable infrastructure 
> like food and lodging. Such a route is typically the product of an 
> organisation that promotes tourism.
> 
> When I (end user of the OSM data) want to go by bike to a shop in an 
> unfamiliar place on the other side of my city I want to do that via "the 
> safest and fastest connection".
> When I plan to travel from Padova, Italy, to Paris, France, on bicycle, 
> I would like the router/navigator to make use of available cycle routes, 
> where suitable. I may accept the occasional crossing of a busy street to 
> get to a city centre, or a steep road to reach a medieval castle.
> 
> According to my experience so far, this approach works reasonably well, 
> because cycle routes are, by tacit convention in the OSM community, 
> cycle-touristic, and all I have to do in the settings of the 
> router/navigator is to deselect the "give preference to cycle routes" 
> option, in order to get "the safest and fastest connection".
> 
> One thing that is essential, if we were to consider a move towards a 
> major change (like using network:type=touristic/... to get at least some 
> data users (designers of routers, navigators) into this discussion.
> 
> A side remark: as far as I am aware, the fact that cycling/hiking 
> routers can give precedence to touristic routes in OSM, is something 
> that car navigation systems do not offer.
> 
> Volker
> 
> (my apologies that I react with delay in this thread - I had a close 
> encounter with a car, 5 ribs and a clavicle cracked, and have only one 
> hand free to type)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 

-- 
-- engineers motto: cheap, fast, good - choose any two Increase the
Awesome, reduce the WTF!