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

Thu Nov 25 07:34:39 UTC 2021

... that's great and this is as I think one relevant source of the long
lasting discussion.

This differs slightly but relevant to the definition of the (at least
NRW) German guidelines which try to create one thing for both groups of
cyclists. (By the way: the differentiation  like below is mentioned in
the same way in the German guidelines).

And that's funny (or maybe not funny at all?). To put these things under
one network may be really crazy - but they try it. (You may call this
typical German - doing things with a strong anancastic force no matter
what result - and here the fun disappears... ).

But - we are just dealing with some simple bicycle signs and try to find
a representation for what we find on the ground. And with these
different approaches you find different accents in the tagging schemes.
But as they are still simple ways, merely based on data about locations,
it should be possible to find a feasible way for mapping.

In other words - even if the underlying theory may be weird, we also
could map it.

Greetings, Sebastin

Am 24.11.21 um 21:09 schrieb 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
>>
>