[Tagging] Cycling infrastructure routes (was Re: cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?)

Minh Nguyen minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
Tue Nov 30 18:51:33 UTC 2021


Vào lúc 02:58 2021-11-30, Brian M. Sperlongano đã viết:
> 
> In the US, I even struggle to come up with a clear definition of what 
> counts as a "route" for cycling.  Certainly our signed and numbered "US 
> Bicycle Routes" are routes, but there are many, many dedicated off-road 
> bicycle paths that extend for considerable distances while carrying a 
> common name (and would be mapped as multiple ways based on length and 
> changes in attributes).

If we were to strictly apply the standards we use for roads, then we'd 
nix the route relations for dedicated bikeways that aren't part of 
designated routes. On the other hand, that's distinctly unhelpful for 
mapmaking, since from a user perspective, the dedicated bikeways are 
often more usable routes (in the ad-hoc sense) than the designated routes.

The current approach of representing them all as route=bicycle relations 
gets messy as dedicated infrastructure gradually becomes part of 
designated routes. For example, the Little Miami Scenic Trail in Ohio 
[1] has a well-known identity, so we made it into a coherent network=lcn 
relation. [2] We need a route representation because it unfortunately 
still has a couple of on-road gaps, as well as a short segment with a 
different local name. [3] People still follow the named bikeway instead 
of the concurrent U.S. Bike Route or state routes that are more 
fragmented. This relation is distinguished from those routes by the lack 
of cycle_network=*. None of the network=*cn tags fit well, but there's a 
pro-forma network=lcn on it. Maybe in time it would become informal=yes 
and eventually be deleted.

Rail mappers take a middle ground by distinguishing between 
route=railway for the railway infrastructure versus route=train for the 
services that use it. For example, in the San Francisco area, Caltrain's 
route relations [4] overlap with a route relation for its dedicated 
trackage. [5] An analogous solution for bikeways would be a 
route=cycleway relation for a dedicated bikeway that's known by a 
particular name. It might be a better way to model bike boulevards too.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226227939
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/53754
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/847384735
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9606321
[5] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7916804

-- 
minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us





More information about the Tagging mailing list