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

[Peter Elderson]

voschix at gmail.com:
> Brian M. Sperlongano:
> Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 5. icn, ncn, rcn and lcn are used for recreational routes
> Says who? 
> 
> 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.

True, of course. I meant, in practice most *cn routes are recreational, that's why I think it is not wise to use *cn as a marker for any other fixed kind of route. It doesn't tell the purpose of a route, only the geographical/operating scope and the transport method.

In Nederland and Belgium, we hijacked rcn to exclusively indicate Node Network. I am glad we corrected that mistake by using network:type=node_network, even if it is not the best self-explanatory tag ever. 

> Though is it even possible to have "international cycle network" that is NOT recreational?

Why not.  Cycling is still evolving all around the world. In Europe, there are Node networks, functional routes and recreational routes crossing national borders, though I think these often classify as regional or national with some borderline branches. Officially Preferred cycling routes often seem to follow a national programme, but regionally implemented and regionally or locally operated and maintained.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211130/5611ae02/attachment.htm>