Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-15 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Beside my proposal for bicycle subtype route, I read again the tourism wiki
page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism
« Places and things of specific interest to tourists including places to
see, places to stay, things and places providing information and support to
tourists. »
and
« tourism=yes : To add tourist interest to something described by other
tags. »

So, if a route is a thing of specific interest to tourist, I see no good
reason to not tag it with tourism=yes.
(And I don't understand why it shouldn't be used on relation since here
it's the route relation which is touristic.)


Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 20:24, joost schouppe  a
écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational
> versus functional routes?
>
> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes
> for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in
> France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in
> Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those
> routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have
> "cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting
> somewhere.
>
> In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of
> cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate.
>
> Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off
> tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking.
>
> I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful,
> perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something.
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-14 Thread joost schouppe
Thanks for all the replies.

Just a note on verifiability; always assuming they are waymarked:

- for car routes, it's pretty obvious whether it's part of a functional
network (say A8 or E40) or a pretty network (with a nice name and a
roundabout layout)
- for cycle networks, in the cases I know, the operator has clear vision
documents as to the purpose of the network (recreation VS commuting VS
mountainbiking). When this information is not available in a
straightforward way, or it just doesn't have a specific function, you just
don't add the possible subtag.

This in itself is an argument for creating a subtag rather than new values
of the existing main classification. Since the function of the routes
overlaps between both cycle and car routes, I think I'd prefer a tag that
can be used on all route relations.

Joost

Op ma 13 jan. 2020 23:13 schreef Volker Schmidt :

> Bicycle or hiking routes in OSM that are not trailblazed have one big
> drawback: they confuse data end users (they are looking for the signs, and
> if there are none, think they have taken the wrong turn.
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, 19:21 brad,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>> Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
>> facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
>> ministries.
>>
>> Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in a
>> visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite training
>> loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> I think this is an overreaction.There are many routes that meet the
>> wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or
>> marked.I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, but
>> that is only a minor annoyance.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux <
>> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
>>> trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of
>>> France.
>>> « Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
>>> should remove that tag, don't you think?... »
>>>
>>> You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
>>> intersection of those routes ?
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
>>> I doubt that.
>>>
>>> This is how the Wiki define a route:
>>> « A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
>>> predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
>>> people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
>>> numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
>>>
>>> So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
>>> « A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
>>> travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
>>> consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »
>>>
>>> And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.
>>>
>>> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> >
>>> > >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am
>>> all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
>>> manageable.
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
>>> > and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
>>> > http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
>>> > I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
>>> > owned a car for 9 years.
>>> >
>>> > So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
>>> > are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
>>> > training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>>> >
>>> > But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
>>> > a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
>>> > properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>>> >
>>> > I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
>>> > improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
>>> > there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
>>> > hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
>>> > full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
>>> > routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
>>> > some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
>>> > tell them apart.
>>> >
>>> > If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
>>> > designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
>>> > that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
>>> > are more for 

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-13 Thread Volker Schmidt
Bicycle or hiking routes in OSM that are not trailblazed have one big
drawback: they confuse data end users (they are looking for the signs, and
if there are none, think they have taken the wrong turn.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, 19:21 brad,  wrote:

>
>
> On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
> facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
> ministries.
>
> Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in a
> visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite training
> loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.
>
> Joseph
>
> I think this is an overreaction.There are many routes that meet the
> wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or
> marked.I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, but
> that is only a minor annoyance.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
>> trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of
>> France.
>> « Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
>> should remove that tag, don't you think?... »
>>
>> You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
>> intersection of those routes ?
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
>> I doubt that.
>>
>> This is how the Wiki define a route:
>> « A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
>> predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
>> people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
>> numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
>>
>> So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
>> « A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
>> travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
>> consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »
>>
>> And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.
>>
>> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >
>> > >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am
>> all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
>> manageable.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
>> > and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
>> > http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
>> > I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
>> > owned a car for 9 years.
>> >
>> > So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
>> > are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
>> > training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>> >
>> > But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
>> > a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
>> > properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>> >
>> > I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
>> > improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
>> > there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
>> > hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
>> > full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
>> > routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
>> > some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
>> > tell them apart.
>> >
>> > If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
>> > designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
>> > that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
>> > are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
>> > can't tag the distinction.
>> >
>> > Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
>> > other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
>> > data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
>> > single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
>> > canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>> >
>> > - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> --
>> Florimond Berthoux
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-13 Thread brad



On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government 
facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most 
ministries.


Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in 
a visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite 
training loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.


Joseph
I think this is an overreaction.    There are many routes that meet the 
wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or 
marked.    I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, 
but that is only a minor annoyance.





On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux 
mailto:florimond.berth...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital
of France.
« Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May
be we should remove that tag, don't you think?... »

You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post
at the intersection of those routes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
I doubt that.

This is how the Wiki define a route:
« A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel,
often predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken
repeatedly by people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic
route, a car on a numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist
on a national route. »
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
« A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage
or travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road
bicycle routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »

And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> a
écrit :
>
> >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes,
I am all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear
tagging, and manageable.
>
> +1
>
> I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could
edit. And
> I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> owned a car for 9 years.
>
> So I would love to have more information about what streets and
roads
> are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>
> But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm
that
> a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>
> I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But
since
> there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike
layer was
> full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> routes, some were based on the personal preference of the
mapper, and
> some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> tell them apart.
>
> If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you
can tag
> that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> can't tag the distinction.
>
> Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path
along a
> canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg

-- 
Florimond Berthoux

___
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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-12 Thread Warin

On 13/1/20 10:23 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government 
facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most 
ministries.


Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in 
a visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite 
training loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.



I have had one mark 'their' training loops and commuting routes in as 
cycle lanes.. where no cycle lanes exist. Given the choice between that 
and a route entry I'd chose the route.





Joseph

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux 
mailto:florimond.berth...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital
of France.
« Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May
be we should remove that tag, don't you think?... »

You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post
at the intersection of those routes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
I doubt that.

This is how the Wiki define a route:
« A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel,
often predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken
repeatedly by people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic
route, a car on a numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist
on a national route. »
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
« A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage
or travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road
bicycle routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »

And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> a
écrit :
>
> >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes,
I am all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear
tagging, and manageable.
>
> +1
>
> I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could
edit. And
> I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> owned a car for 9 years.
>
> So I would love to have more information about what streets and
roads
> are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>
> But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm
that
> a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>
> I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But
since
> there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike
layer was
> full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> routes, some were based on the personal preference of the
mapper, and
> some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> tell them apart.
>
> If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you
can tag
> that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> can't tag the distinction.
>
> Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path
along a
> canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg

-- 
Florimond Berthoux




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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-12 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
ministries.

Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in a
visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite training
loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.

Joseph

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle trekking
> is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of France.
> « Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
> should remove that tag, don't you think?... »
>
> You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
> intersection of those routes ?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
> I doubt that.
>
> This is how the Wiki define a route:
> « A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
> predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
> people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
> numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
>
> So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
> « A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
> travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
> consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »
>
> And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.
>
> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am
> all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
> manageable.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> > and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> > http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
> > I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> > owned a car for 9 years.
> >
> > So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
> > are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> > training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
> >
> > But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
> > a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> > properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
> >
> > I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> > improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
> > there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> > hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
> > full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> > routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
> > some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> > tell them apart.
> >
> > If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> > designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
> > that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> > are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> > can't tag the distinction.
> >
> > Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> > other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> > data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> > single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
> > canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
> >
> > - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-12 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle trekking
is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of France.
« Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
should remove that tag, don't you think?... »

You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
intersection of those routes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
I doubt that.

This is how the Wiki define a route:
« A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
« A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »

And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :
>
> >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all
for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
manageable.
>
> +1
>
> I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
> I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> owned a car for 9 years.
>
> So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
> are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>
> But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
> a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>
> I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
> there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
> full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
> some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> tell them apart.
>
> If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
> that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> can't tag the distinction.
>
> Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
> canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-12 Thread Peter Elderson
Sorry, but this is not a useful classification for bicycle routes in
Nederland.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op zo 12 jan. 2020 om 17:34 schreef Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:

> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 22:22, Peter Elderson  a
> écrit :
> >
> >  Florimond Berthoux :
> >>
> >> So I propose to use for bicycle route
> >> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
> >>
> >
> > I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
> city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
> > We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets"
> (Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women.
> Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays.
>
> bicycle:type describe the type of cycle activity of the route not
> precisely the type of the bicycle. (Though commuter bike is a type of
> bicycle and you have road biking in Netherland
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_National_Road_Race_Championships).
> So values should be (if my english is right):
> bicycle:type=trekking/road_biking/commuting/mtb
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-12 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 22:22, Peter Elderson  a écrit
:
>
>  Florimond Berthoux :
>>
>> So I propose to use for bicycle route
>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>>
>
> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
> We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets"
(Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women.
Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays.

bicycle:type describe the type of cycle activity of the route not precisely
the type of the bicycle. (Though commuter bike is a type of bicycle and you
have road biking in Netherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_National_Road_Race_Championships).
So values should be (if my english is right):
bicycle:type=trekking/road_biking/commuting/mtb

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-12 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 21:20, marc marc  a écrit :
>
> Le 11.01.20 à 21:05, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> > What do you think ?
>
> avoid the word "type" in a key as it as no additional meaning.
> type can be everything (type of operator, difficulty, use, length, ...)

That's why I use bicycle:type, so it means the type of cycling the
route is used for.


-- 
Florimond Berthoux

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
>  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all for 
> it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and manageable.

+1

I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
owned a car for 9 years.

So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
training rides and which ones are fun for tours.

But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
properly. Subjective tags cannot work.

I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
tell them apart.

If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
can't tag the distinction.

Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/12/20, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> Peter Elderson :
>
>>  Florimond Berthoux :
>>
>>> So I propose to use for bicycle route
>>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
>> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really
>> just
>> city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
>> We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets"
>> (Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women.
>> Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays.
>>
>> There is a lot of variation in bicycle types, lots of hybrids, too, and
>> all have electric variants nowadays. I don't think you want them all
>> tagged
>> in the routes? Just the ones having dedicated routes?
>>
>> Despite all the variations of bicycles I think very few types have
>> dedicated routes indicated as such on the road, in Nederland. Mtb would
>> be
>> the only separately indicated type, I think, and that would include
>> atb's.
>> If dedicated speed bicycle routes were signed on the roads, that would be
>> taggable I guess, but we don't have those. Yet? There is talk of bicycle
>> speedways, but so far it's just talk.
>>
>
>> The only other thing I see on the road is preferred routes in and around
>> cities. Most of the time these are not waymarked, it's just that the
>> signposts direct you to e.g. City Center over these routes, where
>> shortcuts
>> through residential areas or parks may be available but not desirable.
>> It's
>> not really a system, I think it's mainly locally decided to guide
>> cyclists
>> around the block for safety.
>>
>>
>> ___
>>> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Peter Elderson
Peter Elderson :

>  Florimond Berthoux :
>
>> So I propose to use for bicycle route
>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>>
>>
> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
> city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
> We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets"
> (Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women.
> Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays.
>
> There is a lot of variation in bicycle types, lots of hybrids, too, and
> all have electric variants nowadays. I don't think you want them all tagged
> in the routes? Just the ones having dedicated routes?
>
> Despite all the variations of bicycles I think very few types have
> dedicated routes indicated as such on the road, in Nederland. Mtb would be
> the only separately indicated type, I think, and that would include atb's.
> If dedicated speed bicycle routes were signed on the roads, that would be
> taggable I guess, but we don't have those. Yet? There is talk of bicycle
> speedways, but so far it's just talk.
>

> The only other thing I see on the road is preferred routes in and around
> cities. Most of the time these are not waymarked, it's just that the
> signposts direct you to e.g. City Center over these routes, where shortcuts
> through residential areas or parks may be available but not desirable. It's
> not really a system, I think it's mainly locally decided to guide cyclists
> around the block for safety.
>
>
> ___
>> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Peter Elderson
 Florimond Berthoux :

> So I propose to use for bicycle route
> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>
>
I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets" (Grandmother's
bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women. Grandmothers have
e-bikes, nowadays.

There is a lot of variation in bicycle types, lots of hybrids, too, and all
have electric variants nowadays. I don't think you want them all tagged in
the routes? Just the ones having dedicated routes?

Despite all the variations of bicycles I think very few types have
dedicated routes indicated as such on the road, in Nederland. Mtb would be
the only separately indicated type, I think, and that would include atb's.
If dedicated speed bicycle routes were signed on the roads,

The only other thing I see on the road is preferred routes in and around
cities. Most of the time these are not waymarked, it's just that the
signposts direct you to e.g. City Center over these routes, where shortcuts
through residential areas or parks may be available but not desirable. It's
not really a system, I think it's mainly locally decided to guide cyclists
around the block for safety.


___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread marc marc
Le 11.01.20 à 21:05, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> What do you think ?

avoid the word "type" in a key as it as no additional meaning.
type can be everything (type of operator, difficulty, use, length, ...)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Florimond Berthoux
I found that this problem has a solution for relation route=piste (snow
sports) with the key piste:type=*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:piste:type

Three of you have proposed to use like for piste relation a single new key
to precise the subtype of the a route
Joost Schouppe with: function=recreational/practical
Marc Marc with: usage=tourism/transport
Richard with: route_type=*

I proposed multi-tags like tourism/commute/road_bike/mtb=yes, though I'm
not confident with this scheme.
Tags can conflict with already defined tags (tourism), or a vehicle type
which could misinterpret as access tags (road_bike and mtb).

So I propose to use for bicycle route
bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
That can be distinguish by looking at the signposts, or board, or the kind
of people (or their bike) who use the route.
If necessary semicolon can be used to for multiple bicycle:type though I
guess that'd be rare.

For other relations I don't know, I don't map or use them much. However I
guess that road relation can have a road:type=* tag also.

What do you think ?

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Peter Elderson
Ok let's look at Berlin. I see bicycle routes in and around Berlin: 
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=6162=12.597273579561199!52.5315!13.4447
Are those routes touristic or commuter routes? How can you tell? I assume these 
have been mapped because they are waymarked/signposted. Or are you saying there 
is a network of commuter routes that has not been mapped yet, but deserves to 
be mapped? If that is the case, how do you see on the road which cycling 
connections are part of the commuter network?

Btw, I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all for 
it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and manageable.

A city commuter route network, if clearly signposted and with decent covering, 
certainly deserves tagging and seems very useful for rendering, planning, 
routing and navigating. I tend to see it as a new type of network,  e.g 
network:type=commuter_network (tagged on the commuter routes) comparable to 
network:type=node_network.

Best,  Peter Elderson

> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 19:35 heeft Volker Schmidt  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> I would like to return to the initial question of this thread, and looking at 
> it from the end users point of view.
> 
> When in a car, I use my navigation device in real time to get as comfortably 
> as possible from A to B to C and so on.
> I may select to avoid motorways, and may give preference to minor roads. But 
> if I want to go along the  Route des Vins d'Alsace , my basic navigation 
> system will not help. In that case I have to follow the signs of the  Route 
> des Vins d'Alsace.
> 
> When riding my bicycle, I use a navigation web site normally off-line 
> beforehand, to get as comfortable as possible  from A to B to Ca. Thai gives 
> me typically the choice t select the bicycle type: road bike, touring bike, 
> MTB. If I want to go along recommended tourist routes I can select a site 
> that gives preference to ways that follow cycle routes (i.e. a route relation 
> in OSM-speak with type=bicycle). The routing algorithm on that site assumes 
> that by selecting a bicycle route in OSM I am on a safer route (because it 
> makes use of bicycle infrastructure where available) but also that the route 
> is more interesting from the tourist perspective.
> But there are - few - cycle routes in OSM that  are purely indicating bicycle 
> commuter routes. Examples: from the routes of the small town Pesaro's 
> Bicipolitana (OpenCycleMap, network map)  to big-city networks like Berlin, 
> Paris, London.
> Than we have traditionally many "bicycle" routes that really are MTB routes 
> (because they have been created before the type=MTB had been defined).
> I would assume that there are road-bike bicycle relations in OSM, but don't 
> know any example.
> So yes, it makes perfect sense to distinguish different bicycle route types.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 09:29, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>> 
>> Andy Townsend :
>>> Peter Elderson wrote:
>>> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
>>> >
>>> >> I think;
>>> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
>>> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
>>> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
>>> >
>>> > Hint: Nederland.
>>> 
>>> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly 
>>> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a 
>>> generally good network of separated cycleways. 
>> 
>> You would be surprised... but that wasn't the issue. THe examples show no 
>> extrapordinary  ways or routes. Characteristics of ways in a route are 
>> tagged on the way, such as surface, elevation, speed, access, oneway. 
>> Characteristics of the whole route are tagged on the relation. I would only 
>> create a route relation for a route that's actually visible, i.e. waymarked. 
>> For bicycles we have route=bicycle, for mtb we have route=mtb. Chracterizing 
>> routes as especially suited for or designated as touristic or speed cycling, 
>> if that was a common thing visible on the ground, no problem. I am sure 
>> examples can be found. I am not sure it is enough to warrant tagging. 
>> On the other hand, if someone or a group of cyclists intend to tag the 
>> visible or obvious (?)  purpose(s) of routes in a particular country in more 
>> detail, and makes a nice special interest map of it, fine! I would not 
>> expect random mappers around the globe to map it, though.
>> ___
>> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Volker Schmidt
I would like to return to the initial question of this thread, and looking
at it from the end users point of view.

When in a car, I use my navigation device in real time to get as
comfortably as possible from A to B to C and so on.
I may select to avoid motorways, and may give preference to minor roads.
But if I want to go along the  Route des Vins d'Alsace , my basic
navigation system will not help. In that case I have to follow the signs of
the  Route des Vins d'Alsace.

When riding my bicycle, I use a navigation web site normally off-line
beforehand, to get as comfortable as possible  from A to B to Ca. Thai
gives me typically the choice t select the bicycle type: road bike, touring
bike, MTB. If I want to go along recommended tourist routes I can select a
site that gives preference to ways that follow cycle routes (i.e. a route
relation in OSM-speak with type=bicycle). The routing algorithm on that
site assumes that by selecting a bicycle route in OSM I am on a safer route
(because it makes use of bicycle infrastructure where available) but also
that the route is more interesting from the tourist perspective.
But there are - few - cycle routes in OSM that  are purely indicating
bicycle commuter routes. Examples: from the routes of the small town
Pesaro's Bicipolitana (OpenCycleMap
,
network map
)
to big-city networks like Berlin
,
Paris
,
London

.
Than we have traditionally many "bicycle" routes that really are MTB routes
(because they have been created before the type=MTB had been defined).
I would assume that there are road-bike bicycle relations in OSM, but don't
know any example.
So yes, it makes perfect sense to distinguish different bicycle route types.


On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 09:29, Peter Elderson  wrote:

>
> Andy Townsend :
>
>> Peter Elderson wrote:
>> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
>> >
>> >> I think;
>> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
>> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
>> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
>> >
>> > Hint: Nederland.
>>
>> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
>> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
>> generally good network of separated cycleways.
>>
>
> You would be surprised... but that wasn't the issue. THe examples show no
> extrapordinary  ways or routes. Characteristics of ways in a route are
> tagged on the way, such as surface, elevation, speed, access, oneway.
> Characteristics of the whole route are tagged on the relation. I would only
> create a route relation for a route that's actually visible, i.e.
> waymarked. For bicycles we have route=bicycle, for mtb we have route=mtb.
> Chracterizing routes as especially suited for or designated as touristic or
> speed cycling, if that was a common thing visible on the ground, no
> problem. I am sure examples can be found. I am not sure it is enough to
> warrant tagging.
> On the other hand, if someone or a group of cyclists intend to tag the
> visible or obvious (?)  purpose(s) of routes in a particular country in
> more detail, and makes a nice special interest map of it, fine! I would not
> expect random mappers around the globe to map it, though.
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-10 Thread Peter Elderson
Andy Townsend :

> Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
> >
> >> I think;
> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
> >
> > Hint: Nederland.
>
> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
> generally good network of separated cycleways.
>

You would be surprised... but that wasn't the issue. THe examples show no
extrapordinary  ways or routes. Characteristics of ways in a route are
tagged on the way, such as surface, elevation, speed, access, oneway.
Characteristics of the whole route are tagged on the relation. I would only
create a route relation for a route that's actually visible, i.e.
waymarked. For bicycles we have route=bicycle, for mtb we have route=mtb.
Chracterizing routes as especially suited for or designated as touristic or
speed cycling, if that was a common thing visible on the ground, no
problem. I am sure examples can be found. I am not sure it is enough to
warrant tagging.
On the other hand, if someone or a group of cyclists intend to tag the
visible or obvious (?)  purpose(s) of routes in a particular country in
more detail, and makes a nice special interest map of it, fine! I would not
expect random mappers around the globe to map it, though.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 10. Jan. 2020 um 09:09 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> A 'tourist' route would usually target scenery, history the occasional eatery.
> It should be 'interesting' to the visitor.
>
>

Yes, a tourist route may sometimes be identified unambiguously, for example
if it is a noexit route to a historic site like a castle, where you have to
take the same way back as you came. Nobody could use this route to commute.
But these are very few of all routes. Most of the times, you will use any
route for commuting, while tourists use routes that either take them where
they want to go, or where the route itself is delighting (or ideally both).
So almost any route could be commute=yes, and many might be interesting for
tourists (although this goes more into the recommendation direction than
describing unquestionable hard facts).

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-10 Thread Warin

A 'tourist' route would usually target scenery, history the occasional eatery.
It should be 'interesting' to the visitor.
The surface, smoothness is of concern to the sports car driver or the road 
racing bicycle rider where they want a good road.
For different reasons the tourist in a 4WD or MTB may prefer a far less well 
developed 'road'.
But both the above groups will be after 'interest' for them in a 'tourist' 
route.

A 'commuting' route would usually be the quickest way from A to Z without 
regard to beauty, history etc.
Of no real interest to the user other than to get from A to Z.

Beauty, scenery are not things well tagged in OSM, and not something that would 
be well evaluated by remote mapping.

The other thing of real concern to bicycle riders is elevation changes.. these 
are challenging. Bicycle routes usually avoid them, there are those after that 
challenge though.
Again this is not something well mapped in OSM.

Some will say 'interest' is a subjective thing. Well it is recognized by 
tourist boards who establish them, provide maps and sign post them.
Those who have used them find some better than others, but again that is 
subjective.



On 10/1/20 3:37 pm, Marc Gemis wrote:

I assume those characteristics are mapped on the OSM-ways representing
the roads, not on the relation.
As far as I understand Peter's arguments, the fact that a bicycle
route is suitable for recreation, commuting, skilled MTB'ers and so
on, should be determined from the characteristics of the roads in the
relation, not from some tag on the relation.

If we go back the Joost's original question of cycle highways vs. node
network or local roundtrip routes. Do we need a tag on the relation to
distinguish one as commute and the other as recreational? Where is
this information useful?

Suppose I want a fast commute, can the router give me a ride over a
lot of bicycle highways without tags on the relation? Or can that be
done just by the characteristics of the roads in that relation? Or
because they form an almost uninterrupted straight line next to a
railway?

On the other hand, can the system give me touristic routes that allow
me to explore an area, or will it send me over cycle highways which
are not meant for that purpose? A node network or a local round trip
is meant for that.

The original question was how can we tag the difference between a
route representing a cycle highway and a note network. Peter, you
recently worked hard to introduce a new tag to distinguish cycle
networks from other routes. Can we use that tag, with a different
value, for cycle highways to separate them from the others?

But then we do not solve the problems for touristic car routes and for
the examples Florimand gave.

regards

m

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven


I think;
Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.

I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Hint: Nederland.

Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true
everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I
tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good
shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 ,
where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the
UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it
too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without
the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of
the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for
walkers never mind cyclists.

Not so far away is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which
is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is
probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a
normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).

Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other
factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between
Perth and Albany in Australia (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US
routes.

Best Regards,

Andy




___
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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
I assume those characteristics are mapped on the OSM-ways representing
the roads, not on the relation.
As far as I understand Peter's arguments, the fact that a bicycle
route is suitable for recreation, commuting, skilled MTB'ers and so
on, should be determined from the characteristics of the roads in the
relation, not from some tag on the relation.

If we go back the Joost's original question of cycle highways vs. node
network or local roundtrip routes. Do we need a tag on the relation to
distinguish one as commute and the other as recreational? Where is
this information useful?

Suppose I want a fast commute, can the router give me a ride over a
lot of bicycle highways without tags on the relation? Or can that be
done just by the characteristics of the roads in that relation? Or
because they form an almost uninterrupted straight line next to a
railway?

On the other hand, can the system give me touristic routes that allow
me to explore an area, or will it send me over cycle highways which
are not meant for that purpose? A node network or a local round trip
is meant for that.

The original question was how can we tag the difference between a
route representing a cycle highway and a note network. Peter, you
recently worked hard to introduce a new tag to distinguish cycle
networks from other routes. Can we use that tag, with a different
value, for cycle highways to separate them from the others?

But then we do not solve the problems for touristic car routes and for
the examples Florimand gave.

regards

m

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
> >
> >> I think;
> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
> >
> > Hint: Nederland.
>
> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
> generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true
> everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I
> tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good
> shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 ,
> where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the
> UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it
> too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without
> the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of
> the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for
> walkers never mind cyclists.
>
> Not so far away is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which
> is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is
> probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a
> normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).
>
> Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other
> factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between
> Perth and Albany in Australia (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US
> routes.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend

On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven


I think;
Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.

I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Hint: Nederland.


Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly 
have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a 
generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true 
everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I 
tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good 
shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 , 
where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the 
UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it 
too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without 
the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of 
the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for 
walkers never mind cyclists.


Not so far away is 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which 
is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is 
probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a 
normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).


Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other 
factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between 
Perth and Albany in Australia (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US 
routes.


Best Regards,

Andy




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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven

> I think;
> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes. 

I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Hint: Nederland. 

> For those that see no need for these classes .. what harm will they do to the 
> data base?
> 
> I am ignoring the 'verification' argument for the time being.
> 
> P.S. I personally see no need to specify how a power line is attached to a 
> pole .. others are quite happy to map such detail.  So I have no objection to 
> there mapping, I will never use it nor map it. 
> 
> 
> On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not 
>> have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a 
>> bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.
>> 
>> Best, Peter Elderson

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Warin

I think;
Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.

For those that see no need for these classes .. what harm will they do 
to the data base?


I am ignoring the 'verification' argument for the time being.

P.S. I personally see no need to specify how a power line is attached to 
a pole .. others are quite happy to map such detail.  So I have no 
objection to there mapping, I will never use it nor map it.



On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do 
not have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just 
signposted as a bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.


Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst 
mailto:rich...@systemed.net>>:


Joost Schouppe wrote:
> In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> for routers to be able to differentiate.

Yes - with my cycle.travel  hat on, I'd find
this very useful. Just an
optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.

I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a
road bike
route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's
signposted as a
bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or
touring
purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is
wholly
unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is
highway=trunk
or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although
it's a
signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more
akin to a
standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.

cheers
Richard

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html



--
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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
> You don't need signpost to have a route.

I disagree. If there is nothing on the ground, there is no mappable route.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 22:05, Peter Elderson  a écrit :
>
> Florimond Berthoux  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Ok, you need examples :
> this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C
> this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599=C 
> as you can see in this video https://youtu.be/1dGtSZbUKew
> and this is for road cycling 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163270#map=15/48.8577/2.2333=C 
> as you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwNlVjTOKU
>
>
> I can't see the signposting of the routes in the videos, I assume because I 
> don't know where to look?

You don't need signpost to have a route.

The topic is not how to map that, but how can I tag more precisely the
purpose of a cycle route.

-- 
Florimond Berthoux

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson

Florimond Berthoux  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> Ok, you need examples :
> this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C
> this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599=C 
> as you can see in this video https://youtu.be/1dGtSZbUKew
> and this is for road cycling 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163270#map=15/48.8577/2.2333=C 
> as you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwNlVjTOKU
> 

I can't see the signposting of the routes in the videos, I assume because I 
don't know where to look? 

> Of course nobody will blame you if you use a touristic route for commuting, 
> and adding a tag tourism=yes doesn’t imply it can’t be used by every day 
> cyclists.
> 
> What the point? If you are a commuter you’ll focus on fast and safe route, so 
> you’ll prefer REVe Nord-Sud than Eurovelo 3 at this place 
> https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=18/48.86796/2.35391/cyclosm 
> For instance, this information can be used for rendering map (like CyclOSM on 
> which I work) or routers (a tourist profile routing will prefer tourism 
> route).

(just playing devil's advocate)
Wouldn't renderers and routers prefer road attributes? 

>> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Ok, you need examples :
this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C
this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599=C
as you can see in this video https://youtu.be/1dGtSZbUKew
and this is for road cycling
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163270#map=15/48.8577/2.2333=C
as you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwNlVjTOKU

mtb:scale / surfaces tags are for ways not relation.

Of course nobody will blame you if you use a touristic route for commuting,
and adding a tag tourism=yes doesn’t imply it can’t be used by every day
cyclists.

What the point? If you are a commuter you’ll focus on fast and safe route,
so you’ll prefer REVe Nord-Sud than Eurovelo 3 at this place
https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=18/48.86796/2.35391/cyclosm
For instance, this information can be used for rendering map (like CyclOSM
on which I work) or routers (a tourist profile routing will prefer tourism
route).

Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 16:10, Peter Elderson  a écrit :

> waymarked mtb routes are tagged route=mtb on the relation
> waymarked cycling routes are tagged route=bicycle on the relation.
>
> I don't know how I could verify that a cycling route is either touristic
> or for commute/everyday cycling or both. Even if advertised as touristic it
> can be used for commute/everyday cycling, ande the other way around.
> I do not foresee significant mapping of these purposes.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 15:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <
>> florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
>>> commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
>>>
>>
>>
>> where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?
>>
>>
>>
>>> road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
>>> mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented
>>>
>>
>>
>> to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater
>> detail) by presence of mtb:scale tags
>> maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1).
>> Also smoothness could help.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
>>
>> Cheers
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not
have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a
bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst :

> Joost Schouppe wrote:
> > In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> > for routers to be able to differentiate.
>
> Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an
> optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.
>
> I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a road
> bike
> route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's signposted as a
> bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or touring
> purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is wholly
> unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is
> highway=trunk
> or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although it's a
> signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more akin to a
> standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
> [1]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html
> ,
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Joost Schouppe wrote:
> In the case of cycling, it would be really useful 
> for routers to be able to differentiate.

Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an
optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.

I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a road bike
route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's signposted as a
bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or touring
purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is wholly
unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is highway=trunk
or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although it's a
signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more akin to a
standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.

cheers
Richard

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html



--
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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
waymarked mtb routes are tagged route=mtb on the relation
waymarked cycling routes are tagged route=bicycle on the relation.

I don't know how I could verify that a cycling route is either touristic or
for commute/everyday cycling or both. Even if advertised as touristic it
can be used for commute/everyday cycling, ande the other way around.
I do not foresee significant mapping of these purposes.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 15:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:
>
>> tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
>> commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
>>
>
>
> where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?
>
>
>
>> road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
>> mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented
>>
>
>
> to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater detail)
> by presence of mtb:scale tags
> maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1). Also
> smoothness could help.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:

> tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
> commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
>


where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?



> road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
> mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented
>


to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater detail)
by presence of mtb:scale tags
maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1). Also
smoothness could help.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Hi,

I would like also to be able to map four kind of cycle routes : touristic,
commuting, road bike, mountain bike (mtb).
Today we can map mtb and general cycling route (most of them are touristic
though not limited to them).
But unfortunately mtb and cycling routes are split in two kinds of routes.
I'd prefer to have cycle route for every kind of cycling and precise the
type by an other tag (with the possibility to set multiple kind of cycle
route for the same relation).
So what I’m thinking is to add tags to cycle route relation in order to
precise there use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations
tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented


And for general route (and car routes) I’d say that type=road relation is
what you need https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Droad
(By the way the Route des Grandes Alpes in France is also a cycle route
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_des_Grandes_Alpes )

Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 20:24, joost schouppe  a
écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational
versus functional routes?
>
> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes
for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in
France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in
Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those
routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have
"cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting
somewhere.
>
> In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of
cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate.
>
> Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off
tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking.
>
> I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful,
perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something.
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:23 PM joost schouppe 
wrote:

> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes
> for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in
> France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in
> Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those
> routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have
> "cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting
> somewhere.
>

Sounds like a job for route relations.  Also a good reason why moving route
refs off ways and make them exclusively relation-based is a good idea we
really need to strongly consider.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-07 Thread marc marc
Le 07.01.20 à 20:21, joost schouppe a écrit :
> function=recreational/practical
usage=tourism/transport ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-07 Thread Peter Elderson
If a route meant for motor vehicles is waymarked as a recreational route,
why not use the same tagging system as for other recreational routes?

[relation]
type=route
route=Xmn where X=l (local), r (regional), n (national) or i
(international) an mn is motor network
(name=...)
(operator=...)
(symbol=...)
(osmc:symbol=...)
and other relevant tags

If the route is waymarked in both directions, chances are there will be a
lot of differences. You could use the role-based backward/forward ways
system as is usual in cycling routes or use separate relations for the
directions, then put them together in a parent relation.

The roles in routes discussion would then apply, too.


Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 7 jan. 2020 om 20:52 schreef Marc Gemis :

> AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with
> https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I thought at on
> some signs there is also the silhouette of a car)
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:39 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > joost schouppe :
> >
> > > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic
> routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des
> Cols in France
> >
> > Are these routes waymarked as special routes?
> >
> > > ___
> > > 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-07 Thread Marc Gemis
AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with
https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I thought at on
some signs there is also the silhouette of a car)

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:39 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> joost schouppe :
>
> > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes 
> > for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in 
> > France
>
> Are these routes waymarked as special routes?
>
> > ___
> > 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-07 Thread Peter Elderson
joost schouppe : 

> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for 
> driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France

Are these routes waymarked as special routes? 

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

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