On 05/10/2012 11:08 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > 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).
Again: The lines on the map of the city of Utrecht are not routes at all. They are roughly the ways busiest with cyclist radiating out of the central railway station. Even for it's purpose it is fairly useless, since it misses all the important tangential "routes". There are similar maps made by the city of Utrecht for car traffic. As usual the holy cow of western society (the car) gets more attention and these maps have move detail (like traffic in tangential directions and neighbourhood feeders). The local mappers used these as a rough guideline for which roads to map as primary, secondary and tertiary. That is the normal flow of information. You can use the (overly) generalized maps made for policy making to selectively add information to OSM, but making these style of maps always requires human editors of the map (not just of the map data). --- m.v.g., Cartinus _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
