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

[Peter Elderson]

Journey-Oriented Recreational Traffic guidance is the regular mapping of
(mostly) recreational routes in OSM, provided it's
visible/verifiable (signposted, waymarked).

Destination-Oriented Everyday Traffic guidance for most forms of transport
is not usually mapped in OSM. Fact is that it's
present/visible/verifiable in most countries. So yes, it can be mapped.

It really does not matter whether the physical signs are on integrated
guideposts or separate posts or a mix. It's about what they provide for the
traveller: where to go, where to ride, what way to use, how to get to the
next clue.

In my view, the guideposts mark the route to take, not the physical ways.
The physical ways can be / often are completely unmarked for this purpose.
The way doesn't know it's being routed over. This is equivalent to the OSM
system of route relations, where a way can be added to any number of route
relations for many purposes, without having to tag the way with all these
routes and purposes.

It's up to the mapper how to define begin and end of such routes. Mapping
all destinations to all other destinations is not very practical. In this
case, mapping Guidepost2Guidepost seems feasible, and could cover the whole
system of destination oriented traffic guidance wherever it occurs and
whatever form it takes. It's a hell of a job, but if people want to do it,
be my guest!

Nothing new so far, all of this is being done already. Nothing is invented
here. So what's new?

If you want to enable data users to provide special handling of destination
oriented routes, different than how recreational routes are handled, the
relations need a tag to make that possible.

So, why not limit the discussion (and the proposal from which it sprouted)
to which tag would be appropriate to distinguish destination oriented
routes from recreational routes?

For me, two things are important:

* The tag should not interfere with existing tags (should not require
retagging existing route relations)
* The tag should be generic, i.e. applicable to all modes of transport, in
all countries, and all geographic scopes. It indicates a purpose. The other
aspects are already present in other tags.

Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211125/8eec0913/attachment.htm>