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

[s8evq]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 05:58:39 -0500, "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonewolf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I find it difficult to make this distinction. How can you see whether a
> > route “is” touristic or not?

Local mappers in Belgium use common sense. 
- Almost all touristic cycle routes are loops (except node network).
- The tourist cycle routes are advertised as such
- You can easily tell by the name
- You can easily tell by the operator (for example tourism office)


> > IMHO it depends on the use the cyclist makes
> > of the infrastructure whether it is one or the other. 

No, I don't agree. You map based on what the infrastructure is _intended_ to be used for by the one designing this cycle routes, not what the some individuals actually use it for.

> 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. 

Totally agree.

> 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.

As I wrote above, in practice, this doesn't pose a problem for the routes here in Belgium. They are very easily to tell apart with some common sense.