[OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 04.05.2010 00:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>    
>> Sadly though many people in OSM are not able to leave their small
>> focussed mind and cannot espace their caged mind and try to use a
>> motorist perspective to do bicycle autorouting (e.g. CycleStreets
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CycleStreets>  or
>> Cycle_routes/cyclability
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability>).
>>      
> This is perhaps the most offensive thing I have ever read on these
> mailing lists, and I think you owe CycleStreets in particular - and
> those in OSM involved in cycle campaigning in general - an apology.
>
> Richard
>
>    
I think they should rather feel honoured. They do good work, but in my 
opinion they should not accept that all data is motorist focussed, but 
also attack problems on how to make the data more usable for autorouting 
from a purely bicycle focussed point of view. I have laid this out from 
the top in context, and I don't consider it as offensive at all. From 
the standpoint that bicycle routing needs own tags, their approach is 
wrong/not comprehensive enough. They give a good example of trying hard 
to achieve the goal of nice routes, but as laid out in my opinion, will 
never reach that goal without changing focus.