[talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?

[Steve Bennett]

Hi Lachlan,

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Lachlan Rogers <lachlan at rogers.name> wrote:
> I am wanting to scout out optimal on-road routes to connect cycle paths into
> excellent recreational routes.  For instance the recently opened Fernleigh
> (Rail trail) Track ends in Belmont, and just a few kms away there is a great
> path around Green Point.  I want to tag a route (probably as "lcn") through
> the streets of Belmont so that viewers can see how best to join these rides
> together.  To my knowledge there is no official council-endorsed cycle
> route.
>
> I recognise some people may have a philosophical aversion to this, because
> it is tagging based on usefulness rather than on what is "actually on the
> ground".  I feel, however, that we have an opportunity to scout out optimal
> connections and start using them for cycling now, while we lobby councils to
> make such routes "official".  I would choose a tagging scheme along the
> lines of "network=lcn" with "status=unofficial" or something so that these
> routes could be located by a search algorithm if needed.


IMHO we have to be pragmatic here. Official infrastructure for such
routes is miles behind the equivalent in the UK, Holland, Germany,
etc. Signage is frequently lacking even on council-endorsed routes,
and naming is hopelessly inconsistent. Therefore, OSM already performs
a bit of an interpretive role.

So, I think your "status=unofficial" tagging is good. If (and that's a
big IF) the "slippery slope" ever actually happens (eg, there are
several competing "unofficial" routes, creating a mess), then we
should reconsider. But overall, I think the benefit in tagging a few
"unofficial" links between official routes is greater than the harm
done.

We might also consider making "unofficial" a more widely used OSM tag.
But be aware that some councils use terms like "informal" to mean an
official route which is on road without bike lanes.

(Btw, the "map what's on the ground" mantra is really inaccurate - we
map tons of stuff which is not "on the ground" in any literal or even
metaphorical sense. It's not a good rule of thumb.)

Steve