On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@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.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
