Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Oct 14, 2019, at 4:31 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> I imagine mtb maps showing all kinds of mtb-trails except The Big One that 
> everybody knows. If I were an MTB'ist, I would probably disxcard OSM as 
> unusable, because it doesn't even give the biggest MTB-route on the planet!

To be clear, this is a grey area that the original post was not discussing.  

If a route is "famous", even if it is unsigned, then I think it deserves being 
in OSM. That "famous" bit crosses into "local knowledge". The route has a name 
everyone knows and uses. It isn't a nameless trace someone mapped for their 
personal use. 

The routes I map are official routes made up mostly of cycleways, with various 
crossings and detours where the cycleways cannot be constructed. The official 
route switches from cycleways on one side of the river to the other to avoid 
upcoming obstacles - the rider is asked to detour onto roads, sidewalks, 
pedestrian crossings, and other ways that are not dedicated cycleways - 
"detours" that are mapped (and usually signed) as the official route.

This collection of ways - cycleways, sidewalks, marked ped crosswalks, unmarked 
cycleway crossings, and roads make up the larger route. 

I am more forgiving of the idea of marking MTB trails Because MTB routes are 
often the only trails through an area passable to bicycles. They probably 
include a lot of double-track "tracks" as well.

But Cycling routes through a city or region for commuting/transportation are 
often chosen because they are designated from the myriad of roads and ways that 
one *could* cycle on, but this route was selected just for them because of 
affordances (dedicated ways, cycle Lanes, curb cuts, etc). Mapping every loop 
route you enjoy cycling for excersize in the mountains is treated as one of 
these transportation routes - deceiving users into thinking there is a route 
that is good for cyclists trying to cross the mountains,  when it is actually a 
Narrow two lane trunk road with no shoulder and no sidewalk - and loops Back to 
where you started. They are not cyclways for transportation. 

I don't want regular cycle routes used for transportation confused with random 
routes made by hobbyists for their weekend training. The MTB route discussed 
sounds like it should at least be be considered in OSM as an MTB route - but 
that is for route=MTB people to discuss. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 14/10/2019 14:50, Dave F via Tagging wrote:


PS Can anyone explain what an " academic member" is?


Just found out it was a spell-correct typo. Volker is an ACA member

DaveF

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 14/10/2019 00:17, Warin wrote:

On 14/10/19 07:26, Volker Schmidt wrote:

(disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view)
The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The 
source for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a 
map set from ACA,  which has their copyright on it. aca sells the GPX 
track and the map.

For these reasons I think the Great Divide should no be in OSM.


Say I used a copyright map to travel somewhere. During that trip I 
generate a GPX track.
Should I not then have the right to use that generated GPX track to 
map things in OSM???


+1
Do it all the time using current UK OS maps.

PS Can anyone explain what an " academic member" is?

DaveF


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Richard Fairhurst]

brad wrote:
> There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for 
> the great divide route.   There are also many websites which 
> discuss the route and show maps.   It's in the public domain.

It is only "public domain" (US usage) if the creators have disclaimed all
copyright in it, or if it's not eligible for copyright protection. I'm not
aware of the Adventure Cycling Association doing the former, or any US case
law for the latter. (But my knowledge of US case law is very imperfect, so
if you could point to either, that'd be helpful!)

"It's on lots of websites" does not mean something is free of copyright.
There are plenty of places where you can download cracked versions of Adobe
Photoshop but I'm pretty sure that's still copyrighted. :)

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Peter Elderson]

I compare it with the Via Francigena in Italy. That route is very well
signposted, but even if it were not, you would see signs of its existence
and importance in road names, milestones, names and signs of dwellings and
café's along the way. There are self-registration points on the way,
resting places with a pilgrim sign. And yes, all the locals know it and
will point you to it. You'll get complete local history lectures with it,
which I would not record in OSM though :) .

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 14 okt. 2019 om 09:38 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 14/10/19 18:28, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> brad:
>
>> There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for the
>> great divide route.   There are also many websites which discuss the route
>> and show maps.   It's in the public domain.
>>
>>
> I've looked at the info for the Great Divide MTB-trail without any prior
> knowledge.
> On the one hand I think, if there's nothing on de ground don't map it.
> On the other hand, if it's a fixed and well kept trail known to all, I
> imagine mtb maps showing all kinds of mtb-trails except The Big One that
> everybody knows. If I were an MTB'ist, I would probably disxcard OSM as
> unusable, because it doesn't even give the biggest MTB-route on the planet!
>
>
> If you ask local where it is a fair proportion would direct you to it?
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Warin]

On 14/10/19 18:28, Peter Elderson wrote:

brad:

There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net
for the great divide route. There are also many websites which
discuss the route and show maps.   It's in the public domain.


I've looked at the info for the Great Divide MTB-trail without any 
prior knowledge.

On the one hand I think, if there's nothing on de ground don't map it.
On the other hand, if it's a fixed and well kept trail known to all, I 
imagine mtb maps showing all kinds of mtb-trails except The Big One 
that everybody knows. If I were an MTB'ist, I would probably disxcard 
OSM as unusable, because it doesn't even give the biggest MTB-route on 
the planet!


If you ask local where it is a fair proportion would direct you to it?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Peter Elderson]

brad:

> There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for the
> great divide route.   There are also many websites which discuss the route
> and show maps.   It's in the public domain.
>
>
I've looked at the info for the Great Divide MTB-trail without any prior
knowledge.
On the one hand I think, if there's nothing on de ground don't map it.
On the other hand, if it's a fixed and well kept trail known to all, I
imagine mtb maps showing all kinds of mtb-trails except The Big One that
everybody knows. If I were an MTB'ist, I would probably disxcard OSM as
unusable, because it doesn't even give the biggest MTB-route on the planet!

I would hope that there are some things along the track dedicated to the
route. A "start here" sign, parking space for starting a section,
arrangement of stones, sticks, adaptations e.g. to make a crossing
possible, anything that shows it's a route. I can't imagine there are no
visible signs of a trail at all.
Then that would be my excuse to map it!


> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Warin]

On 14/10/19 07:26, Volker Schmidt wrote:

(disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view)
The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source 
for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set 
from ACA,  which has their copyright on it. aca sells the GPX track 
and the map.

For these reasons I think the Great Divide should no be in OSM.


Say I used a copyright map to travel somewhere. During that trip I 
generate a GPX track.
Should I not then have the right to use that generated GPX track to map 
things in OSM???



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Volker Schmidt]

(disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view)
The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source for
thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set from
ACA,  which has their copyright on it. aca sells the GPX track and the map.
For these reasons I think the Great Divide should no be in OSM.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, 20:39 brad,  wrote:

> I'm in favor of being flexible for cycling routes.   A good example is
> the great divide mtb route in Canada & US.   It is probably not signed
> very well, if at all.   It was created by a non-profit & I don't think
> it is an official government route.   It is used by quite a few people,
> both on bikes and motorbikes.   It is in OSM and should remain so.
>
>
> On 10/12/19 3:35 AM, Warin wrote:
> > On 12/10/19 20:13, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> >> On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a
> >> good way to go.
> >>
> >> Route=
> >> cycle_touring
> >> road_touring
> >> cyclist
> >> road_cyclist
> >> road_cycling
> >>
> >>   ?
> >>
> >> I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping
> >> actual racing routes.
> >>
> >
> > Cycling can be left off - already in the network tag.
> >
> > Not 'type' - says nothing.
> >
> > 'road' would be ? Narrow tyres?
> >
> > mtbs we already have .. but
> >
> > commuter - local commuter routes to/from shops, transport hubs
> >
> > touring - longer distance routes
> >
> > fitness/exorcise - for the locals
> >
> > scenic/cafe - for local meetings?
> >
> >
> > Some of the routes around me are well sign posted .. others are not so
> > well done.
> > Some local council issue maps .. some of these routes are usefull
> > others are dreaming.
> >
> > In some parts of the world there are no marked 'cycling routes' yet
> > cyclists travel from one point to another using roads/tracks and paths
> > that most motor vehicle don't.. it would be nice if these could be
> > mapped in OSM as there is usually no other source.
> >
> > I don't think a requirement that bicycle routes must have signage fits
> > the entire world.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[brad]

I'm in favor of being flexible for cycling routes.   A good example is 
the great divide mtb route in Canada & US.   It is probably not signed 
very well, if at all.   It was created by a non-profit & I don't think 
it is an official government route.   It is used by quite a few people, 
both on bikes and motorbikes.   It is in OSM and should remain so.



On 10/12/19 3:35 AM, Warin wrote:

On 12/10/19 20:13, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst  
wrote:


A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a
good way to go.

Route=
cycle_touring
road_touring
cyclist
road_cyclist
road_cycling

  ?

I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping 
actual racing routes.




Cycling can be left off - already in the network tag.

Not 'type' - says nothing.

'road' would be ? Narrow tyres?

mtbs we already have .. but

commuter - local commuter routes to/from shops, transport hubs

touring - longer distance routes

fitness/exorcise - for the locals

scenic/cafe - for local meetings?


Some of the routes around me are well sign posted .. others are not so 
well done.
Some local council issue maps .. some of these routes are usefull 
others are dreaming.


In some parts of the world there are no marked 'cycling routes' yet 
cyclists travel from one point to another using roads/tracks and paths 
that most motor vehicle don't.. it would be nice if these could be 
mapped in OSM as there is usually no other source.


I don't think a requirement that bicycle routes must have signage fits 
the entire world.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Phyks]

> This can be handled by looking at 
> roads/cycleways building relation,
> right?

Not really, the good metrics here would rather be the traffic (amount of
traffic, type of motor vehicles, destination) rather than the underlying
infrastructure and OSM at the moment has no such tagging possibility.

In other words, a small residential street with low max speed (30 km/h
or less) and only local traffic does not need any dedicated
infrastructure for safe cycling. But the same street, with the same
legal max speed but being a main transit axis in the city is a nightmare.

Same apply in urban areas.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9866054#map=14/45.6545/-0.8889
for instance is using a lot of roads with no infrastructure and a
maxspeed of 80km/h. It is however perfectly fine for touring since there
are signs along the route and the roads have very little traffic meaning
you are very safe there on your bicycle.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Warin]

On 12/10/19 20:13, John Willis via Tagging wrote:

On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a
good way to go.

Route=
cycle_touring
road_touring
cyclist
road_cyclist
road_cycling

  ?

I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping actual 
racing routes.



Cycling can be left off - already in the network tag.

Not 'type' - says nothing.

'road' would be ? Narrow tyres?

mtbs we already have .. but

commuter - local commuter routes to/from shops, transport hubs

touring - longer distance routes

fitness/exorcise - for the locals

scenic/cafe - for local meetings?


Some of the routes around me are well sign posted .. others are not so well 
done.
Some local council issue maps .. some of these routes are usefull others are 
dreaming.

In some parts of the world there are no marked 'cycling routes' yet cyclists 
travel from one point to another using roads/tracks and paths that most motor 
vehicle don't.. it would be nice if these could be mapped in OSM as there is 
usually no other source.

I don't think a requirement that bicycle routes must have signage fits the 
entire world.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Peter Elderson]

Netherlands usage is: the route must have some physical representation on the 
roads. Preferably waymarked all the way. But long routes tend to use 
local/regional/national sections as parts, so the waymarking does not have to 
be the same everywhere. Also, some routes are scarcely or even barely signed, 
still, when zooming out they are clear trails. 
Personally, I would even allow routes which consist of e.g. a list of places to 
visit, with a sign at the central square or the main church naming and showing 
the route. Some sections of Jacob’s trails and other european internation 
routes work like that.

But, just documentation on a website or a book describing a route: I would 
oppose that.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 12 okt. 2019 om 04:27 heeft John Willis via Tagging 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
>> broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
>> perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
>> rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
>> try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
>> "tag to render".
> 
> 
> Similar to how bus routes are laid over existing road infrastructure, I think 
> there should be a big distinction between the paths/crossings/roads that are 
> assembled to make a cycling “road", and some route that people have come up 
> with just for exercising that is just some generic road in rural area people 
> go touring on. 
> 
> - Cycling roads/routes for travel/transportation with some kind of documented 
> status with the government. 
> 
> - MTB routes, usually using off-road ways & infrastructure - documented by 
> the maintainer of the route, whoever that is.
> 
> - roads used by cyclists for exercise/racing, with no documentation or 
> signage - usually shared via online route-sharing sites.
> 
> if you are making a map of the cycling routes available, I would assume the 
> first category is the most important, and possibly the only one that should 
> be prominently rendered.
> 
> similar to how we render roads, the prominence of motorways pales to the 
> prominence of lesser roads.  Please include them, but we would need tagging 
> to show the purpose of the route, beyond “network” or what super-relation 
> they belong to. 
> 
> This might be difficult, as the usage probably vary from region to region: 
> MTB routes in Japan are negligible, and dedicated cycling roads abound. 
> Whereas in San Deigo, there are zero “cycling roads” that are maintained by 
> the government, and probably a lot of documented MTB routes in the wilderness 
> parks.
> 
> but documenting & rendering any route that a cycle club enjoys cycling on the 
> weekend? unneeded. a motorcycle club’s favorite route in the mountains is 
> unworthy of a route relation as well.  
> 
> OSM is not an online route-sharing site. 
> 
> here is a “Nikko Loop” route made by some cyclist who enjoys cycling. 
> 
> https://ridewithgps.com/routes/31059198
> 
> This is the job of this other private website (ridewithgps.com) - document 
> and share routes for cyclist users. But Nikko City has no documentation for 
> such a route, and shouldn’t be included in OSM. 
> 
> 
> Javbw
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[John Willis via Tagging]

On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a
good way to go.

Route=
cycle_touring
road_touring
cyclist
road_cyclist
road_cycling

 ?

I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping actual 
racing routes. 

Javbw


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Richard Fairhurst]

Phyks wrote:
> * Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists, 
> often racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes, 
> we might have `route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical 
> example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 
> (which might actually fall into the tag to render category)

Agreed. I raised this in 
  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html

in connection with https://www.visitsnowdonia.info/ffordd-brailsford-way,
which is a signposted bike route (two routes, in fact) around North Wales,
but entirely unsuitable except for experienced cyclists on road bikes - much
of it is on highway=trunk. A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a
good way to go.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 18:28 by ph...@phyks.me:

> with varying quality of
> infrastructure but always a legal status. See for instance
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2246847 (very bad infrastructure,
> but official signs in the streets) or
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445738 (tourist road, official
> organism in charge of maintaining it, dedicated and very good
> infrastructure).
>
This can be handled by looking at 
roads/cycleways building relation,
right?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Mateusz Konieczny]

12 Oct 2019, 04:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
>
>> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks <>> ph...@phyks.me 
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
>> broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
>> perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
>> rendering style,>>  >> https://cyclosm.org >> ), it is 
>> very often a nightmare to
>> try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
>> "tag to render".
>>
>
>
> Similar to how bus routes are laid over existing road infrastructure, I think 
> there should be a big distinction between the paths/crossings/roads that are 
> assembled to make a cycling “road", and some route that people have come up 
> with just for exercising that is just some generic road in rural area people 
> go touring on. 
>
> - Cycling roads/routes for travel/transportation with some kind of documented 
> status with the government. 
>
> - MTB routes, usually using off-road ways & infrastructure - documented by 
> the maintainer of the route, whoever that is.
>
> - roads used by cyclists for exercise/racing, with no documentation or 
> signage - usually shared via online route-sharing sites.
>
> if you are making a map of the cycling routes available, I would assume the 
> first category is the most important, and possibly the only one that should 
> be prominently rendered.
>
> similar to how we render roads, the prominence of motorways pales to the 
> prominence of lesser roads.  Please include them, but we would need tagging 
> to show the purpose of the route, beyond “network” or what super-relation 
> they belong to. 
>
> This might be difficult, as the usage probably vary from region to region: 
> MTB routes in Japan are negligible, and dedicated cycling roads abound. 
> Whereas in San Deigo, there are zero “cycling roads” that are maintained by 
> the government, and probably a lot of documented MTB routes in the wilderness 
> parks.
>
> but documenting & rendering any route that a cycle club enjoys cycling on the 
> weekend? unneeded. a motorcycle club’s favorite route in the mountains is 
> unworthy of a route relation as well.  
>
> OSM is not an online route-sharing site. 
>
> here is a “Nikko Loop” route made by some cyclist who enjoys cycling. 
>
> https://ridewithgps.com/routes/31059198 
> 
>
> This is the job of this other private website (> ridewithgps.com 
> > ) - document and share routes for cyclist users. 
> But Nikko City has no documentation for such a route, and shouldn’t be 
> included in OSM.
>
In case of nagging such distinction it
would be good to make clear that
 unsigned routes must not be mapped and should be deleted.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
> broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
> perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
> rendering style, https://cyclosm.org ), it is very 
> often a nightmare to
> try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
> "tag to render".


Similar to how bus routes are laid over existing road infrastructure, I think 
there should be a big distinction between the paths/crossings/roads that are 
assembled to make a cycling “road", and some route that people have come up 
with just for exercising that is just some generic road in rural area people go 
touring on. 

- Cycling roads/routes for travel/transportation with some kind of documented 
status with the government. 

- MTB routes, usually using off-road ways & infrastructure - documented by the 
maintainer of the route, whoever that is.

- roads used by cyclists for exercise/racing, with no documentation or signage 
- usually shared via online route-sharing sites.

if you are making a map of the cycling routes available, I would assume the 
first category is the most important, and possibly the only one that should be 
prominently rendered.

similar to how we render roads, the prominence of motorways pales to the 
prominence of lesser roads.  Please include them, but we would need tagging to 
show the purpose of the route, beyond “network” or what super-relation they 
belong to. 

This might be difficult, as the usage probably vary from region to region: MTB 
routes in Japan are negligible, and dedicated cycling roads abound. Whereas in 
San Deigo, there are zero “cycling roads” that are maintained by the 
government, and probably a lot of documented MTB routes in the wilderness parks.

but documenting & rendering any route that a cycle club enjoys cycling on the 
weekend? unneeded. a motorcycle club’s favorite route in the mountains is 
unworthy of a route relation as well.  

OSM is not an online route-sharing site. 

here is a “Nikko Loop” route made by some cyclist who enjoys cycling. 

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/31059198

This is the job of this other private website (ridewithgps.com 
) - document and share routes for cyclist users. But 
Nikko City has no documentation for such a route, and shouldn’t be included in 
OSM. 


Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Warin]

On 12/10/19 03:28, Phyks wrote:

Hi,

I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
"tag to render".

I'd say we either need subtags to precise and categorize the cycle
routes or some clear definition in the wiki.

Here are a few examples of what I mean by "too diverse":

* Some are racing routes, which have been added to OSM as a cycle route
but are by no means usable (no indication on the terrain, huge highways)
outside of the race. See
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Epreuve-Cyclo-randonnee-Paris-Brest-Paris-dans-OSM-td5924677.html
for instance (in French), now removed.

* Some are real roads with an official entity maintaining them (signs,
tourist maps, official documentation), with varying quality of
infrastructure but always a legal status. See for instance
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2246847 (very bad infrastructure,
but official signs in the streets) or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445738 (tourist road, official
organism in charge of maintaining it, dedicated and very good
infrastructure).

* Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists, often
racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes, we might have
`route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical example is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 (which might actually fall
into the tag to render category)

* Some have no official existence, but a practical one. Take
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664028 for instance, this is
just a (long) cycleway in Paris. There are no special signs, nothing
special, but everyone refers to it by this acronym, "REV", and it is
widely known. These are actually very hard to discriminate with the "tag
to render" and might easily fall back in this category.

So, in short, I think a clearer definition of what should be a cycle
route (with regards to an official entity, a widely used name or
anything else) and some tags for subcategorizing it further for special
uses (not made for any cyclist) could probaby help a lot!



While motor vehicles have road classifications to say which roads should be 
preferred cyclists have little.

There are a few 'official' maps (some by councils, cities and some even by 
cycling clubs) of usually disjointed routes but little to indicate what route 
to use from A to B. These could be for commuting, sightseeing or touring.

There are the 'racing routes' used by competitive cyclists both during a race 
and to practice for it.

So I too would like to see some additional tags for cycling routes.

P.S. It is now magpie season in Australia, cable ties are applied to bicycle 
helmets to keep them away from human flesh ..

https://www.magpiealert.com/






___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Phyks]

Hi,

I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
"tag to render".

I'd say we either need subtags to precise and categorize the cycle
routes or some clear definition in the wiki.

Here are a few examples of what I mean by "too diverse":

* Some are racing routes, which have been added to OSM as a cycle route
but are by no means usable (no indication on the terrain, huge highways)
outside of the race. See
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Epreuve-Cyclo-randonnee-Paris-Brest-Paris-dans-OSM-td5924677.html
for instance (in French), now removed.

* Some are real roads with an official entity maintaining them (signs,
tourist maps, official documentation), with varying quality of
infrastructure but always a legal status. See for instance
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2246847 (very bad infrastructure,
but official signs in the streets) or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445738 (tourist road, official
organism in charge of maintaining it, dedicated and very good
infrastructure).

* Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists, often
racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes, we might have
`route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical example is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 (which might actually fall
into the tag to render category)

* Some have no official existence, but a practical one. Take
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664028 for instance, this is
just a (long) cycleway in Paris. There are no special signs, nothing
special, but everyone refers to it by this acronym, "REV", and it is
widely known. These are actually very hard to discriminate with the "tag
to render" and might easily fall back in this category.

So, in short, I think a clearer definition of what should be a cycle
route (with regards to an official entity, a widely used name or
anything else) and some tags for subcategorizing it further for special
uses (not made for any cyclist) could probaby help a lot!

Best,
-- 
Phyks
Le 11/10/2019 à 13:52, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> 
> 
> 11 Oct 2019, 12:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>>
>> Is there something Im not understanding? Can anyone make a route relation 
>> for any Way regardless if it is actually a designated oute by a city, 
>> signed, or publically documented?
>>
> Such tagging for rendering happens
> but is incorrect and should be deleted.
> 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/10/2019 12:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


11 Oct 2019, 12:37 by rich...@systemed.net

(I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and
routing
codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or
otherwise
unsuitable.)

Can you list made-up lines that pollute OSM?

(I'm not Richard and these aren't cycle routes but) I've recently set a 
couple of walking routes to "name:signed=no" based on walking 
significant portions of them and never seeing a sign:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8450999

Incomplete "The Inn Way"; appears to be from an out of print book.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6367972

"Three Feathers Walk (Kilburn)", original source unclear but listed at LDWA.

I did wonder whether it was worth asking on talk-gb whether they should 
be deleted, but didn't bother in the end.



A couple of other examples that I have not seen signage for are:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7336319 (Wainwright's Coast to Coast)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1996318 (Lyke Wake Walk)

I was the last editor of both of those (editing path changes around Chop 
Gate), but only saw waymarks for the Cleveland Way. The second of these 
predates many of the national trails, the first is as well established 
as and probably walked more than many national trails.  Both are now 
much more than just "a favourite walk" or "something somebody created to 
sell a book".


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 8:52 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:
> 
> Can anyone make a route relation for any Way regardless if it is actually a 
> designated oute by a city, signed, or publically documented?
> Such tagging for rendering happens
> but is incorrect and should be deleted.

This is what my gut told me. I’ll be careful as I go through them in the next 
few months. I research the designated routes by actually cycling them and 
looking up the governmental maps of their routes. so many of them incomplete.

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 12:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>
> Is there something Im not understanding? Can anyone make a route relation for 
> any Way regardless if it is actually a designated oute by a city, signed, or 
> publically documented?
>
Such tagging for rendering happens
but is incorrect and should be deleted.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 12:37 by rich...@systemed.net
> (I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and routing
> codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or otherwise
> unsuitable.)
>
Can you list made-up lines that pollute OSM?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Dave F via Tagging]

Are you able to properly verify these are all "Random road your cycling 
club likes to ride on the weekend" & not designated/signed routes?


ATM it appears you're vetting them purely on the class of highway used.

Designated cycle routes can go along "just regular roads, with no 
designation for cyclists."


DaveF





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> wouldn't it be better to delete them from OSM if they are made up?

It would, but I have limited hours in the day to police every single cycle
route relation in OSM.

I lose track of the amount of time I spent on user messages and changeset
comments trying to get the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route properly tagged
as route=mtb... it even says Mountain Bike in its name, for crying out loud.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 12:38 Uhr schrieb Richard Fairhurst <
rich...@systemed.net>:

> (I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and routing
> codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or otherwise
> unsuitable.)



wouldn't it be better to delete them from OSM if they are made up?

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Richard Fairhurst]

John Willis wrote:
> I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that 
> should be mapped in strava or a similar workout app. 

Fully agree. Go for it.

OSM is for verifiable, signposted cycle routes and verifiable, real cycling
infrastructure. If a route is on the way to being signposted then it can be
mapped with state=proposed.

There are literally millions of personal favourite rides in guidebooks and
on third-party websites but with no supporting evidence on the ground. There
is no place for these in OSM.

(I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and routing
codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or otherwise
unsuitable.)

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[John Willis via Tagging]

Am I misunderstanding something fundamental?  Mapping cycle route relations 
Sounds a lot like mapping bus routes: mapping the designated routes of existing 
public/private routes seems to be useful - mapping where you like to drive your 
RV around With a bus route relation and inter-mixing that into official bus 
route relations sounds like a disaster. 

I was under the impression cycle route relations (especially with a network=* 
designation) were for mapping designated cycleway routes - not mapping wherever 
bicycle=yes is implicit or implied, or whatever route I happen to enjoy riding 
on weekends.

Of course The the relation can include any way - it might include cycle Lanes 
in large roads or segments of roads used to link cycling roads together - but 
just any random road your cycling club likes to ride on the weekend? A route 
that is 100% trunk road from end-to-end with 0% cycling lanes or paths and no 
official designation as a route for cyclists? Is that part of a "cycling route 
network?" Is my favorite Canoeing path around a lake ferry route relation? 

It reeks of polluting the actual designated cycling routes (which are not even 
half-finished in my area, relation-wise) with relations of random roads which 
are just regular roads, with no designation for cyclists. It's like if I 
designated my daily commute a "cycle route relation, network=local" just so I 
can get a bright blue line in OpenCycleMap, rather than creating/downloading a 
route in my cycling app on my phone for my own private use - mapping for the 
renderer IMO. 

Is there something Im not understanding? Can anyone make a route relation for 
any Way regardless if it is actually a designated oute by a city, signed, or 
publically documented?

Javbw

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 5:58 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/10/19 18:04, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
>> Questions about using cycle relations properly:
>> 
>> I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There are a 
>> lot of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and other water 
>> features out into the countryside, making up a regional system, and a lot of 
>> smaller local cycling roads (also along small rivers) that connect 
>> neighborhoods and towns together.
>> example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3218181
>> 
>> I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into relations 
>> and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc).
>> 
>> But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle 
>> routes: mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise labeled 
>> as a “cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.
>> 
>> example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8066243
>> 
>> - They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are trunk 
>> roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever.
> 
> There is no requirement for a cycle route to use cycleways, even in part.
>> 
>> -they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated cycle 
>> lanes - just regular roads.
>> 
>> - they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no 
>> purpose for travelers or commuters.
> 
> Never the less they could be seen as cycle routes - frequently used by 
> cyclists?
> 
>> 
>> - they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The 
>> Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to ( 関東地方サイクリングロード・ネットワーク 
>> ). https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094 also seems to be made-up 
>> and not official either - the name only returns one result (the OSM data 
>> page) when searched.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have the 
>> route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts.
> 
> I have had a commuting cyclist map into OSM cycling lanes .. that are not 
> there, shared paths that are not shared.. I would much rather that were 
> mapped as routes showing the actual infrastructure that is there.
> 
>> 
>> I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should be 
>> mapped in strava or a similar workout app.
> 
> If the route shows that regular roads are used .. possibly use the 
> description key to state the nature of the route?
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Warin]

On 11/10/19 18:04, John Willis via Tagging wrote:

Questions about using cycle relations properly:

I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There 
are a lot of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and 
other water features out into the countryside, making up a regional 
system, and a lot of smaller local cycling roads (also along small 
rivers) that connect neighborhoods and towns together.

example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3218181

I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into 
relations and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc).


But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle 
routes: mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise 
labeled as a “cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.


example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8066243

- They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are 
trunk roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever.


There is no requirement for a cycle route to use cycleways, even in part.


-they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated 
cycle lanes - just regular roads.


- they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no 
purpose for travelers or commuters.


Never the less they could be seen as cycle routes - frequently used by 
cyclists?




- they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The 
Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to ( 
関東地方サイクリングロード・ネットワーク ). 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094 also seems to be 
made-up and not official either - the name only returns one result 
(the OSM data page) when searched.




To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have 
the route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts.


I have had a commuting cyclist map into OSM cycling lanes .. that are 
not there, shared paths that are not shared.. I would much rather that 
were mapped as routes showing the actual infrastructure that is there.




I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should 
be mapped in strava or a similar workout app.


If the route shows that regular roads are used .. possibly use the 
description key to state the nature of the route?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Have you discussed this with the individual mappers via changeset messages
or on a Japanese forum/mailing list?

Joseph

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:12 PM John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Questions about using cycle relations properly:
>
> I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There are
> a lot of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and other water
> features out into the countryside, making up a regional system, and a lot
> of smaller local cycling roads (also along small rivers) that connect
> neighborhoods and towns together.
> example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3218181
>
> I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into
> relations and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc).
>
> But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle
> routes: mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise labeled
> as a “cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.
>
> example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8066243
>
> - They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are trunk
> roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever.
>
> -they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated
> cycle lanes - just regular roads.
>
> - they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no
> purpose for travelers or commuters.
>
> - they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The
> Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to ( 関東地方サイクリングロード・ネットワーク
> ). https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094  also seems to be
> made-up and not official either - the name only returns one result (the OSM
> data page) when searched.
>
>
>
> To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have the
> route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts.
>
> I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should be
> mapped in strava or a similar workout app.
>
> Javbw
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

[John Willis via Tagging]

Questions about using cycle relations properly:

I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There are a lot 
of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and other water features 
out into the countryside, making up a regional system, and a lot of smaller 
local cycling roads (also along small rivers) that connect neighborhoods and 
towns together. 
example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3218181 


I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into relations 
and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc). 

But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle routes: 
mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise labeled as a 
“cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.

example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8066243 


- They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are trunk 
roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever. 

-they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated cycle 
lanes - just regular roads.

- they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no purpose 
for travelers or commuters.

- they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The 
Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to ( 関東地方サイクリングロード・ネットワーク ). 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094 
  also seems to be made-up and 
not official either - the name only returns one result (the OSM data page) when 
searched.  



To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have the 
route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts. 

I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should be mapped 
in strava or a similar workout app. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging