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 <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  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 > >  > 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