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

[Volker Schmidt]

It looks as if here in Italy we live in cycletourism heaven, as (nearly)
all signposted cycle routes are touristic (same is true for hiking).
Thinking about it, the reason may be in the simple fact that most of them
are financed from sources that support tourism. The operators vary, but the
funds normally come from that corner. We also have many cycle paths
(infrastructure) funded as "tourism" related measure. The trivial reason
for this is most likely the lack of funds for cycling infrastructure,
combined with the power of imagination of our administrations.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 10:45, Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>
wrote:

> Vào lúc 00:00 2021-11-30, Volker Schmidt đã viết:
> > 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 the U.S., people tend to distinguish between long-distance touring
> routes and everything else. U.S. Bicycle Routes and state bicycle routes
> are almost always touring routes, while local routes run the gamut from
> touring routes to park trails to bone fide commuter routes. Some local
> bike routes are widely regarded as commuter-friendly, such as the Monon
> Trail and Cultural Trail in Indianapolis, just by virtue of where they
> go. The different networks and their route shields reflect geographic
> scope and ownership, not purpose. Bicycle boulevards are explicitly
> designed to be useful to commuters, but that concept is orthogonal to
> numbered or named routes. [1]
>
> > In addition it may be a good idea to keep in mind that a similar
> > distinction would be useful also for motorised traffic.
>
> By analogy, most numbered highway routes are essentially functional for
> commuting or long-distance travel, but many U.S. states designate a
> parallel system of scenic routes. Depending on the state, a scenic route
> may be an attribute of a numbered highway route, or it may be a
> specially designated route, or it may be just a specially designated
> stretch of roadway without any routing aspect. The scenic=yes tag is
> inadequate because it can only be applied to roadways. [2] It's also
> incapable of distinguishing the various networks of national, state, and
> local scenic routes, each with distinct wayfinding signage.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-November/063126.html
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:scenic
>
> --
> minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d8885326/attachment-0001.htm>