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

[Peter Elderson]

I have direct contact with a routing service provider. He basically says:
give me a simple tag and I can quickly build a display switch ("layer") for
it and use it for preference (weight) in our routing profiles.

It doesn't matter which tag. In essence, it's just a unique string.

He does not like parsing a string to find particular substrings.

Peter Elderson


Op di 30 nov. 2021 om 17:55 schreef Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211130/5b1d4005/attachment-0001.htm>