[Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

Kerry Irons irons54vortex at gmail.com
Sun Jan 11 02:53:07 UTC 2015


By the logic that I-5 in Oregon is tagged as a bike route, then all roads in the US that don't prohibit bicycles should be tagged likewise.  Obviously that "logic" is incorrect.  There is no body, official or otherwise, that calls I-5 in Oregon a bike route.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-----Original Message-----
From: James Umbanhowar [mailto:jumbanho at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 1:28 PM
To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

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.

James

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:
> 	http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159
> 
> The other is I-5 in Oregon:
> 	http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69485
> 
> 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?
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us




More information about the Talk-us mailing list