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

[Richard Mann]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones that are
> signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your route
> suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM database.
>
> Greetings
> Ben

I think there's a distinction between mapping 1000s of "favourite"
tours (bad) and identifying the handful of good through route-sections
that no-one's bothered to signpost yet (good, I think).

Finding routes in cities, there are often subtleties that don't get
tagged, and would be very difficult for a router to pick up by
algorithm, however much objective data you throw at it (eg - priority
at junctions, phase length at traffic lights, viable speed, 85%ile car
speed etc). Whereas if you throw a few "this route works quite well"
sections at an algorithm, it's got a chance.

I'd say we should have an agreed way of tagging "recommended"
route-sections, so that we have choice whether they go on maps, and
whether they get used by algorithms.

Whereas I'm not so convinced by grading individual route sections (for
urban cycling): it's just another piece of micro-data for the
algorithm, when what is needed is some meta-data.

Richard