Ok let's look at Berlin. I see bicycle routes in and around Berlin: 
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=6162&map=12.597273579561199!52.5315!13.4447
Are those routes touristic or commuter routes? How can you tell? I assume these 
have been mapped because they are waymarked/signposted. Or are you saying there 
is a network of commuter routes that has not been mapped yet, but deserves to 
be mapped? If that is the case, how do you see on the road which cycling 
connections are part of the commuter network?

Btw, I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all for 
it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and manageable.

A city commuter route network, if clearly signposted and with decent covering, 
certainly deserves tagging and seems very useful for rendering, planning, 
routing and navigating. I tend to see it as a new type of network,  e.g 
network:type=commuter_network (tagged on the commuter routes) comparable to 
network:type=node_network.

Best,  Peter Elderson

> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 19:35 heeft Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 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, 
> Paris, London.
> 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
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to