[OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render

[Felix Hartmann]

On 16.01.2010 14:04, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Felix Hartmann
> <extremecarver at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Network=mtb makes not much sense in my eye (and was never discussed,
>> approved, proposed...) as we can't differentiate then anymore between
>> local and regional mtb routes.
>> The question therefore is, what values do we want to use for network?
>>
>> Should we use ncn/rcn/lcn (because this is already quite commonly used
>> for route=mtb and the differentitation to cycle routes can be done
>> because we use route=mtb and not route=bicycle) or maybe nmn/rmn/lmn
>> (this would go in accoradance with "ncn" Cycle Network and "nwn" Walking
>> Network), or maybe go without accronyms and use "network=regional_mtb",
>> "network=local_mtb" .....
>>      
> How many places have local/regional/national mountain biking networks?
> How would you tag routes that are both hiking and mountain biking?
> Would a "local mtb network" be something like a set of trails that
> link to each other at a ski resort or dedicated mountain bike park? Or
> perhaps even towns that are lucky enough to have mtb trails used as a
> form of transport...
>
> The general idea that mountain biking routes should be route=mtb, not
> route=bicycle, does seem sound to me; the needs of mountain bikers and
> normal cyclists are quite different and don't overlap much.
>
> Steve
>    
Well I think route=mtb is more or less a consensus. Differentiation to 
route=bicycle is in 99% of all routes clear. It's more on the 
route=bicycle side where "they" have to think about differentiations on 
trekking routes, commuter routes (routes for tourists vs commuters have 
completely different objectives), routes for race cyclists,.....

What we have to think about are inofficial routes. OSM would really 
profit if nice and popular Transalp routes are included into the 
database (we are free mtbikers, we don't need no stinking signs to tell 
us that we are using a mtb route). However I do think we could should 
have some differentiation between mtb routes that are "flagged" out (be 
it only in official tourist brochures, be it on signs,...) and mtb 
routes that are not made by official authorities but by users (e.g. my 
friday afternoon workout route, my favourite transalp route). Often 
official routes are lame anyhow because they have to be 100% legal. This 
is especially true for Germany and Austria, stringent in parts of Italy 
(you not only face hefty fines, but the chance to be fined is also big) 
and less of a problem in France or Switzerland where laws related to 
mtbiking are much friendlier and not dictated by the green dwarf and his 
Jeep.

Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local) 
from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional) 
from A to B to C. Just to answer how many regional routes I know, I do 
know a lot of regional and even official multiple days routes in the 
European Alps.

And there is no problem of all if several routes use the same way, I 
think by now it has become clear to most that routes will have to be 
using relations, because otherwise we get into trouble with multiple 
values for unique keys.
I think the network key would be good to be used for differentiation of 
the different routes. We simply have to think about unified tagging so 
that renderers know what kind of route they are analyzing.