[Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 2/5/2011 12:36 PM, stevea wrote:
> Take a look at Santa Cruz County, California with OSM Cycle Map layer
> (see the text in the last paragraph at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Work_to_be_done_in_the_County).
> We tag highways (AGAIN: additionally tag the WAY containing highway=*)
> that the County (Regional Transportation Commission) displays on its
> annually-published paper Bike Map thusly:
>
> Class I: "highway=cycleway"
> Class II: "cycleway=lane"
> Class III: "bicycle=yes"

bicycle=yes simply means that cycling is allowed, and is the default 
state for everything but a motorway. It should not be used to mean that 
the county thinks it's a good road for cycling. For instance, cycling 
may be allowed on a portion of freeway, but the county instead 
recommends an alternate surface route.
>
> ADDITIONALLY, there is a "local cycleway network" route numbering system
> being simultaneously proposed. The local jurisdictions are in the
> process of literally seeing proposals in OSM, as we speak, using a
> two-digit (initially, to include a third digit on spur and belt routes)
> numbering space, but only on "major" (0, 5) routes first, 8 and 80 being
> the local examples of the first two "spine" routes created. Because
> there is a tag "state=proposed" which is exactly right for these, AND it
> causes "dashing" to imply "proposed," we use it.

Have these been proposed by the governments, or is OSM being used as a 
medium for citizens to recommend routes? The latter seems like a misuse 
of OSM.

> When a route is "approved" by the local jurisdiction (city, town,
> county) just remove the "state=proposed" tag and the "dashing" goes to
> solid. Call this "Part Two B."

No, it's when it's *signed* (example: 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/3553881233) that it should be marked 
as not being proposed. I assume rcn 1 already has signs?