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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:54 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 30 Nov 2021, at 09:17, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> I find it difficult to make this distinction. How can you see whether a
> route “is” touristic or not? IMHO it depends on the use the cyclist makes
> of the infrastructure whether it is one or the other. Or is it about
> signposts?
>

Thank you Martin for expressing this -- I also disagree with this
distinction.  Are we supposed to interview or read the minds of the
cyclists traveling over a particular cycleway to determine whether they are
headed to work or just on a joyride?

In the US, I even struggle to come up with a clear definition of what
counts as a "route" for cycling.  Certainly our signed and numbered "US
Bicycle Routes" are routes, but there are many, many dedicated off-road
bicycle paths that extend for considerable distances while carrying a
common name (and would be mapped as multiple ways based on length and
changes in attributes).

If there is a clear signage distinction between "commuter" and "touristic"
(whatever the latter means) routes, then by all means this justifies some
type of tagging to indicate that a particular cycleway is part of a
collection of cycleways that are signed and designated in a certain way,
much in the same way that we use network on road roads to indicate roads
which share common route symbology.  However, if you are asking mappers to
read the minds of cyclists to determine their intent of riding on a
particular cycleway, then no, this does not make sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211130/0d941aba/attachment.htm>