[talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yes!  we are overloading the cycle route to not simply mean this is a way
> to get from A to B but also to mean a good way to cycle there.
>
> So, yes, we are giving two meanings to the same tag.  Yours is simply
> navigational, and mine assures a minimum level of amenity in urban areas.
>
> I'd argue my use adds substantial value to a router.  Your use adds little
> value over a pure shortest route algorithm.
>
>
Hi Ian,
  I'm all in favour of recording subjective information about the
rideability of individual streets - in fact there are several other
projects out there doing this already. I don't think misusing the LCN/RCN
tags is the right way to do this though. A few reasons:
- You can't record anything about *why* this is a good route
- You can't record different levels of goodness
- You can't distinguish between "this is a good route" and "this is
actually a signed cycle route"

Using an existing tag which has an existing tag, for a novel purpose,
purely so that existing routing software will behave a certain way is
exactly the definition of "tagging for the router". (Not that I believe in
chanting slogans instead of actually spelling out the argument, which is
why I've done so above.)

And yes, "my use adds little value over a pure shortest route algorithm" -
it was never my understanding (or intention) that LCN/RCN tags would be
used by routers. But they're used by renderers of various kinds.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121206/d6062adf/attachment-0001.html>