Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>: > 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
