[OSM-talk-be] Bicycle highways

[Glenn Plas]

I was reading this small arcticle,
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/germany-launches-its-national-bike-autobahn-cycle-network/422451/

So in Germany they just opened up a piece of a long bicycle highway, I
was intruiged, so I started looking for it in OSM.  This is how germans
currently tag their velobahn / radweg NW4

http://www.bahntrassenradeln.de/details/nw4_01.htm

They use ref key=RS1

With my rusty German, it took me a while to realise this is the
designation of the radweg (the 100km stretch), at least if I understand
this correctly.

http://www.rs1.ruhr/

In OSM via ref search: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/e5G

The tags seem to be:

bicycle=designated
description=Verlängerung Radweg Rheinische Bahn von Anbindung
Grugatrasse bis Mülheim Hbf [RS1] (Fertigstellung voraussichtlich Herbst
2015)
foot=no
highway=cycleway
name=Radweg Rheinische Bahn [RS1]
ref=RS1
smoothness=excellent
surface=asphalt
width=4

So nothing really special besides description that this is a 'highway'
and width. (and ... foot=no !).

Note that this is how they tag it, it doesn't mean we should do this.
Just wanted to bring this to attention.

Glenn

On 26-01-16 17:00, Ben Laenen wrote:
> On Sunday 24 January 2016 22:38:06 Sander Deryckere wrote:
>> I think we should get away from those rcn, lcn and ncn networks. And be
>> freer in the allowed networks.
>>
>> Even now there are problems with rcn networks used for cycle nodes, as
>> those are getting introduced in France and Germany, while those countries
>> already use those networks for other route types.
> 
> I agree the network tags should be rethought a little bit. We had some issues 
> years ago when in Antwerp they created a small network of cycle routes through 
> the city, not touristic routes, but fast safe routes. These routes were at the 
> time signed with markings on the ground, but have since disappeared. But now I 
> think about it, I think Brussels still has similar signed routes?
> 
> So all those networks are clashing with each other. At the very least we'll 
> need to start making a distinction between touristic routes and functional 
> routes (routes to actually go somewhere). I still like the hierarchy between 
> local, regional and national (and international), but we need one set of those 
> for touristic routes and one for functional routes. The Brussels network could 
> then be one of those local ones, the bicycle highways regional.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>