[Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
richard at systemeD.net
Sat Jan 10 14:08:12 UTC 2015
I've encountered two problematic bike route relations in the US and
would appreciate thoughts as to the best way to deal with them.
One is the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route:
The other is I-5 in Oregon:
Both are tagged with type=route, route=bicycle, network=rcn.
In both cases they're not of the same character that one would usually
expect from a long-distance RCN route. One is mostly unsurfaced and
therefore requires a certain type of bike; the other is entirely
Interstate and therefore requires a confident rider.
I changed the GDMBR to route=mtb (which is how it'd be tagged elsewhere
in the world), but the original editor has since changed it back with a
plaintive changeset comment in
The I-5 relation seems wrong to me (it's not really a bike route per se,
it's an all-purpose route on which bikes are permitted) but I'm not too
worried as it's easy to find its character by parsing the constituent
ways, which are all (of course) highway=motorway.
But the GDMBR is very problematic in that many of its constituent ways
are highway=residential, without a surface tag. Until these ways are
fixed, the relation is very misleading and likely to break bike routing
(which generally gives an uplift to bike route relations) for all apart
Ideally I believe it should be route=mtb, but the original creator seems
hostile, perhaps for "prominence on OpenCycleMap" issues. (I've messaged
him but no reply as yet.) There may, of course, perhaps be another
commonly used tagging that I'm not aware of.
What does the community think?
More information about the Talk-us