[Talk-GB] difference between bicycle and MTB cycle routes

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jon Pennycook wrote:
> In my opinion, unless there's a clear definition of the difference, a route=bicycle relation should be suitable for almost all bikes, leaving MTB for routes requiring off-road bikes.  I certainly wouldn't take a road bike on a "gravel or cross-country" route!

Yes, fully agree. I've done about half of KAW so far; it's a stretch on a hybrid, definitely best suited for a gravel bike or MTB. It is much more homogenous with route=mtb routes than route=bicycle.

> That particular relation is also tagged ref=NB, implying it's part of the National Byway

That's just a tagging mistake. KAW is certainly not part of the National Byway.

To be honest KAW shouldn't really be in OSM anyway - it's not signposted, and as such little different from n gazillion other routes in guidebooks and magazines. (Even though it is a cracking route.) There was a bit of discussion about Cycling UK's other long-distance bikepacking route, the Great North Trail, here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74330916
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87757341

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-July/024834.html
et seq, particularly https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-July/024849.html and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-July/024857.html


Chris Hodges wrote:
> In an ideal world the tracktype and surface tags would help end users, but they're rarely picked up.

Of course, anyone using a map/router which doesn't pick up these tags should probably consider switching to one that does. ;)

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210615/2c16fc5b/attachment.htm>