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 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=pesaro#map=13/43.9039/12.9054&layers=C>, network map <http://www.comune.pesaro.pu.it/fileadmin/user_upload/COMUNE_PESARO/AREE_TEMATICHE/VIABILITA_MOBILITA/Pagine/Bici/Bicipolitana/mappa/CityMap_BICYCLE_fronte.jpg>) to big-city networks like Berlin <https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=berlin#map=13/52.5094/13.4149&layers=C>, Paris <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7444#map=13/48.8589/2.3469&layers=C>, London <https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=london#map=10/51.5076/-0.1276&layers=C> . 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 <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging