[OSM-talk-be] More cycle routes...

[Ben Laenen]

On Friday 30 May 2008, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
> This is problematic as some regions do not use cycle nodes yet.
> I don't see why rcn routes have to absolutely be with cycle nodes.
> Regional roads are still regional, even without cycle nodes.

I guess to keep rcn tidy and leave lcn as the "everything-else-pot"? :-)

The number one reason why I think lcn is better is that lcn was made for 
networks like the ones in Brussels (i.e. the London cycle network)

> The Brussels Region network makes a difference between ICR/GFR
> routes, local routes and themed routes, with the addition of national
> routes (like RV1, RV10, LF2 or LF56). That's 4 possible levels.
>
> - ICR/GFR routes link the center to the border of the region and
> regional routes, or go in circle in the region. I guess the regional
> routes these connect to will be with cycle node when Flemish Brabant
> has them.

I doubt that'll happen. Cycle node networks are for tourists, the 
ICR/GFR routes are for people who need to get somewhere... Completely 
different purpose.

I guess they could serve as connecting routes between Brussels and cycle 
node network? But then those connecting routes will get their own new 
network signs.

> - municipal routes are mostly within a single municipality and
> connect ICR-GFR routes.

Ah, maybe could be used with state=connection then :-)

> - themed routes either go around green areas or along former train
> tracks. The Green Path goes around the region through marked tracks,
> lanes or regular streets.
> - LF, RV and Ravel routes actually go beyond region borders. Since
> there is no proper national network, it makes sense to use ncn for
> those.

LF and RV do work together, you know :-) But LF are partly managed by 
Toerisme Vlaanderen for example, because tourism is a regional matter 
(or a community matter I guess...) so there is no official touristic 
organization for Belgium who could manage a national network.

> The difference between ICR-GFR and local routes is arguable so I see
> a point to tag ICR-GFR as local routes. As a matter of fact the Carte
> vélo/Fiestkaart just uses the same colours and tags, local (i.e.
> municipal) routes are labelled G/C whereas ICR-GFR have proper names
> (1 to 12, KC, SZ, MM and PP after the recent update). So tagging
> ICR-GFR as lcn makes sense.
>
> However this makes less sense if themed routes are also tagged lcn.
> Meaning, it is hard to make the difference, except for the labels.

Yeah, it's choosing between a mess with rcn or a mess with lcn. But lcn 
is already a mess (I try solving it myself with a preferred_color=# tag 
and then render it myself which makes it somewhat tidier)

> I just defaulted to rcn for ICR-GFR, just like we defaulted to ncn
> for LF/RV. I'm not yet convinced lcn is better, it is as good I
> think. Using rcn offers the choice of using lcn for themed routes.

Maybe we just had to go on with our proposed special tags for cycle node 
networks when the first cycle routes started to appear in OSM. 
Eventually Andy Allan from the cycle map found it better to keep 
ncn/rcn/lcn, but with the added feature that you could make a cycle 
node network of all three of them, and since he owns the cycle map, 
what he said about cycle routes became de facto the standard. His idea 
was that you could have ncn, rcn and lcn node networks at the same 
location that way. (the conversation about that must be deep inside the 
mailing list archives)

But thinking it through, it really doesn't make much sense having 
different kinds of cycle node networks at the same location, think 
about the difficulty of following routes like that, getting for example 
two routes to the same number but one belonging to lcn and the other 
rcn...

Or, perhaps it makes more sense to give themed routes a new tag?

Anyway, the reasons for me for putting ICR/GFR as lcn are:
* Similar to London network which is lcn
* cycle node network will approach Brussels the next years
* rcn = cycle node network in Belgium. Most of Wallonia doesn't have it 
yet, but I guess they'll expand into the rest of Wallonia sooner or 
later.
* lcn overlap each other a lot already, overlapping more will force us 
to think about solutions (like my preferred_color, but maybe there are 
nicer ones)
* if I eventually decide to map the similar network in Antwerp, it'll be 
lcn, so it makes sense that Brussels does the same :-p

Greetings
Ben