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
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

Reply via email to