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

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 16:51:41 UTC 2021


I get the feeling that many of the people contributing here have limited
experience with cycle touring.
I had the privilege that my first encounter with OSM was as an end user in
2010. I had to create a 1900km 19-day long touring route from Padova to
London, via Lake Constance and Paris, for a group of 30 cyclists based on
the list of booked overnight stays.
I used OpenCycleMap and some (now defunct) OSM routing  sites, and the
non-OSM ViaMichelin and other sources. And a lot of satellite images, some
StreetView. Hard Work. The route in many parts was intentionally
perpendicular to standard tourist routes. It took me about three weeks
then. I guess that today it would require one or two days, thanks to
touristic bicycle routes in OSM.
The top level network in Europe is Eurovelo, the US have the growing USBRS,
by the way.
And for the end users there are a number of tour planning sites where you
can enable/disable preference for signposted routes. As practically all
these services use OSM data this means the signposted routes are OSM
bicycle routes. And the tacit underlying assumption is that those routes
are in a general sense touristic. Obviously the routing algorithms cannot
read the names or descriptions of the routes (as someone suggested in this
thread).
Repeating myself for the umpteenth time, let's not throw a big asset of OSM
out of the window by mixing commuting routes an touristic routes in OSM.
It's a pity that none of the routing service designers is participating in
this discussion.

I can only underline my end user experience.

(apologies for my sporadic and cobbled-together contributions - thanks to a
cycling accident, I am at present only one-handed and often resting away
from the keyboard)



On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 16:42, s8evq <s8evqq at runbox.com> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211130/9dd621c8/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list