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

[Volker Schmidt]

At the risk of repeating myself: can we acknowledge that having different
tagging for commuting cycle routes as opposed to touristic cycle routes
would be a big advantage for routing/navigation? And can we acknowledge
that de facto in many European countries and in the US the existing cycle
routes in OSM are mostly touristic? Hence can we agree on a different
tagging scheme for commuting cycle routes?
In addition it may be a good idea to keep in mind that a similar
distinction would be useful also for motorised traffic.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, 08:44 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Nov 29, 2021, 09:44 by voschix at gmail.com:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> That is caused by fact that most (nearly all) signed bicycle routes are
> recreational routes.
>
> Not by some ban/limitation to mapping recreational routes.
>
> If some place has signed non-recreational route it is 100% fine to map it
> as a route.
>
> Though is it even possible to have "international cycle network" that is
> NOT recreational?
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211130/e4957894/attachment-0001.htm>