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

[Volker Schmidt]

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

agreed, if "journey-oriented"  means "touristic"

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.
>

agreed if "destination-oriented" means "efficient"

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.
>
(what are "integrated signposts"?)

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.
>
Hmmm.
So far I have always tagged ways as defining the journey-oriented hiking or
cycling routes by making them part of the route relations. Sometimes I
included signposts, but as a technical convenience, not for routing
purposes. And as far as I know routers/navigation devices can "digest" that
kind of routes.

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.
>
Sure, an OSM way can be part of many route relations.

It's up to the mapper how to define begin and end of such routes.
>
Depends on the type of route: bi-directional A <> B routes are the most
frequent topology (where typically A>B and B>A do not use exactly the same
ways - there may be oneway stretches that are tagged by forward/backward
role tags. Most of these linear routes can be used both ways and the mapper
is free to decide whether A or B is the start.
In case of circular routes the mapper is normally free to pick a beginning
for the list ways in the relation.

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!
>
Is that not called Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging> ?

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.
>
That is the point I have in mind.

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?
>
YES

For me, two things are important:
>
> * The tag should not interfere with existing tags (should not require
> retagging existing route relations)
>
obviously, but this requires a re-definition of the existing cycling or
hiking routes.
Unfortunately we cannot be sure that all existing routes are
"journey-oriented"

* 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.
>
OK also for this. This would also solve the distinction of tagging for
"Route Nationale xyz" and "Route du vin en Roussillon".

Now let's define the tags and make the whole thing a proposal

   - journey-oriented, touristic, recreational. ...
   - destination-oriented, efficient, commuting, ...

And the "Basic Network" seems to have disappeared or better has been
transformed. The "basic network" is the set (in the mathematical sense) of
all ways that are suitable for cycling traffic. In case a country creates a
well-defined criterion for this, we may think of using a specific tag,
otherwise a search may find them:

type:way and ((((highway=cycleway or ((highway=track or highway=path)
and (bicycle=designated
or bicycle=official))) or ((highway=pedestrian and (bicycle=yes or
bicycle=permissive or
bicycle=designated)))) or (highway=* and ((cycleway=track or
cycleway:left=track or cycleway:right=track or cycleway:both=track) or
((cycleway=lane or cycleway:left=lane or cycleway:right=lane or
cycleway:both=lane or cycleway=opposite_lane)) or ((cycleway=lane or
cycleway:left=lane or cycleway:right=lane or cycleway:both=lane) and
((cycleway:left:oneway=no or cycleway:left:oneway:bicycle=no) or
(cycleway:right:oneway=no or cycleway:right:oneway:bicycle=no) or
(cycleway:oneway=no or cycleway:oneway:bicycle=no))) or
((cycleway:left=share_busway or cycleway:right=share_busway or
cycleway=share_busway or cycleway=opposite_share_busway)))) or ((highway=*
and (motor_vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=private or motor_vehicle=destination
or vehicle=no or vehicle=private or vehicle=destination)) and
highway!=cycleway and highway!=footway and highway!=path and
highway!=pedestrian and (bicycle=yes or bicycle=permissive))) and
(construction!=*) and (highway!=construction)

(no guarantee that I copied this correctly from my searches of cyclable
ways in my home city)
Volker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211125/640b1d96/attachment-0001.htm>