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

[Peter Elderson]

My experience with cycling in Italy is from a few years ago, in Northern
Italy, between the Alps and the Apennines.  I seem to remember that
destination based bicycle use was almost non-existent, we had great trouble
finding our way and often were forced to ride on what we in Nederland would
consider motorways by design.

I have seen a sort of destination based non-recreational system between
larger cities, routes signposted as <from>-<to> on all the intermediate
guideposts. If this system covers the country, you have in fact an
implementation of the route network that JochenB proposed, at the national
level.

I am not sure I remember correctly. But, in the Eifel a few months ago, we
used routes along rivers, between cities, which did give the same
impression. The destination based signs gave the end destinations (with
distances) of such a route, and intermediate destinations, at the same time
there were numbered routes and routes waymarked as VIA. We found VIA
everywhere in all directions, so it looked like a quality based route
programme of some organisation.

Peter Elderson


Op di 30 nov. 2021 om 15:06 schreef Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211130/2e92a64d/attachment.htm>