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

[Volker Schmidt]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 16:55, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:53 AM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 5. icn, ncn, rcn and lcn are used for recreational routes.
>>
>
> Says who?
>

Brian,
I stated earlier that this is an "in practice" feature, and not documented.
It is useful and is used by many routing/navigation tools.

lcn is a "local cycling network", it says absolutely nothing about the
> purpose for which people might use the cycleway.  There is nothing in the
> English or German wiki pages that I can find that backs up this assertion.
> I maintain that lcn etc are perfectly fine tagging for either
> recreational or commuter usage, and I find the distinction you're making to
> be strange.
>


>
> We don't tag roads this way, so I don't see why we'd tag cycleways this
> way.
>
You may have overlooked my earlier comment on this aspect.
The routes for motorised traffic are different and lacking exactly the
possibility of distinguishing between what you call "commuter" traffic and
tourism routes. We use road route relations for the various hierarchical
road levels, e. g. "Route Nationale xx" (in France) but have no established
tagging for the signposted touristic route "Route du Vin d'Alsace", which
are an orthogonal category of road routes.
The fact that something is missing in OSM for motorized traffic is not a
good argument for not having it for bicycle tourism, especially as it is
de-facto practice in many parts of the world. And as a frequent end user of
this feature I can confirm that it works.

Volker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211129/d49960cb/attachment.htm>