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

[Dave F]

On 29/11/2021 08:44, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 16:55, Brian M. Sperlongano 
> <zelonewolf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:53 AM Peter Elderson
>     <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         5. icn, ncn, rcn and lcn are used for recreational routes.
>
>
>     Says who?
>
>
> Brian,
> I stated earlier that this is an "in practice" feature, and not 
> documented. It is useful and is used by many routing/navigation tools.

The abbreviations roughly represent their length & location. It doesn't 
indicate a route relations usage at all
Could you name some routers using this "principle"?

>
>
>     lcn is a "local cycling network", it says absolutely nothing about
>     the purpose for which people might use the cycleway.  There is
>     nothing in the English or German wiki pages that I can find that
>     backs up this assertion.  I maintain that lcn etc are perfectly
>     fine tagging for either recreational or commuter usage, and I find
>     the distinction you're making to be strange.
>
>
>     We don't tag roads this way, so I don't see why we'd tag cycleways
>     this way.
>

> You may have overlooked my earlier comment on this aspect.
> The routes for motorised traffic are different and lacking exactly the 
> possibility of distinguishing between what you call "commuter" traffic 
> and tourism routes.

Exactly the same for cycling routes. It's the bicycle rider who decides 
if their using them for commuting or recreation.

> We use road route relations for the various hierarchical road levels, 
> e. g. "Route Nationale xx" (in France) but have no established tagging 
> for the signposted touristic route "Route du Vin d'Alsace", which are 
> an orthogonal category of road routes.
>
> The fact that something is missing in OSM for motorized traffic is not 
> a good argument for not having it for bicycle tourism,

Something can't be missing if it is not required.

>
> especially as it is de-facto practice in many parts of the world.

Please show me a cycle route that declares itself 'only for commuting, 
recreational cyclists are banned', or vice versa.


> And as a frequent end user of this feature I can confirm that it works.

Please provide a "working" example.

Dave F
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211130/95563bb0/attachment.htm>