[OSM-talk-be] Bicycle highways

[Glenn Plas]

> However, before talking about relation, I think a specific value should
> be introduced for the _highway key_ : “cyclehighway" for instance. This
> would help the renderer to show those infrastructures differently than
> the usual “cycleway” (the infamous "piste cyclable” that usually sounds
> like an insult for most serious bikers).

We don't map for the renderer (or A renderer for that matter). It's a
bad idea to start molding tags in order to get a pleasant look in the
standard map stylesheet, it's prone to change.  And you disregard all
other (specialiased/thema) maps.

A relation is the best idea.  A renderer doesn't need a special kind of
highway=cyclehighway tag in order to distinguish between the goals of 2
cycleways.

But I still believe that this cyclehighway thing is just a simple
collection of cycleway/lanes etc..., a long one and unless it's
specifically marked like Sander stated, it doesn't really deserve
special treatment.

I know for a fact that in Duffel the cycleway that goes to Antwerp goes
over into a plain road at the train station and back again on the
'highway' a few kilometers north.

But it's still a regular cycleway for those who use it to go to school
in Duffel, it's not a cyclehighway.  I know that area well and it's not
even a cycleway, it's a lane there.  So your proposed solution causes
all sort of troubles as highway can only contain 1 value.

Hence this is where a relation is a lot better and more workable and the
correct approach.  It's exactly why a relation exists in OSM, to
indicate things that belong together in some fashion even though they
aren't the same at all, or even next to each other.

Glenn


> 
> This is however something that has to be discussed on a higher level
> than Belgium. Where is this place ?

Right here I believe :)