[Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
jumbanho at gmail.com
Sat Jan 10 18:28:27 UTC 2015
The GDMBR issue seems to be a conflict between tagging for the renderer
and tagging for the router ;). To play a little bit of devil's
advocate, gravel roads are eminently bikeable to many non-mountain
bikes. Bike manufacturers have come out with "gravel grinder" style
bikes which are really just old style road bikes with wide tires. There
is fast becoming a continuum from mountain bike to road racing bike in
terms of their ability to handle different types of road conditions
My opinion is that the road ways themselves should be tagged as unpaved
(or tracks as many already are).
The I-5 thing seems strange. That is not a separate "bike route" but
rather an interstate highway that allows bicycles. bicycle=yes on all
the component ways should be sufficient.
On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 14:08 +0000, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Hi all,
> 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
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27862412 .
> 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
> from MTB-ers.
> 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?
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-us