[OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes

[Andy Robinson]

But why does this need special treatment? We don't do it for any other mode
of transport.

 

Cheers

Andy

 

From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com] 
Sent: 10 May 2012 10:08
To: Richard Fairhurst
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance
routes

 

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
wrote:

But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this
thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain?

cheers
Richard

That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for
touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if
unresolved, distinction in Utrecht). 

 

OSM tagging of cycle routes seems dominated by the touristic approach, and
this limits the usefulness of the data if you're more interested in utility
cycling.

 

Looking at the Dutch guidance, they define a main cycle route as one that
has more than 2000 cyclists per day (other countries might settle for a
lower threshold!). These account for about 20% of the lanes/tracks, but
about 80% of the distance cycled. At that sort of volume, signposting is a
bit irrelevant; it's more down to observing the dominant flows of cyclists
(typically reinforced by above-average facilities, though not always). In an
ideal world, you'd do proper counts and derive the data from bottom up, but
given that it's usually pretty obvious, I think a certain amount of
duck-tagging is appropriate.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20120510/6cad211e/attachment-0001.html>