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 [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

Reply via email to