> 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.
+1 I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't owned a car for 9 years. So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for training rides and which ones are fun for tours. But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained properly. Subjective tags cannot work. I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't tell them apart. If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we can't tag the distinction. Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately. - Joseph Eisenberg On 1/12/20, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com>: > >> Florimond Berthoux <florimond.berth...@gmail.com>: >> >>> So I propose to use for bicycle route >>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb >>> >>> >> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in >> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really >> just >> city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories. >> We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets" >> (Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women. >> Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays. >> >> There is a lot of variation in bicycle types, lots of hybrids, too, and >> all have electric variants nowadays. I don't think you want them all >> tagged >> in the routes? Just the ones having dedicated routes? >> >> Despite all the variations of bicycles I think very few types have >> dedicated routes indicated as such on the road, in Nederland. Mtb would >> be >> the only separately indicated type, I think, and that would include >> atb's. >> If dedicated speed bicycle routes were signed on the roads, that would be >> taggable I guess, but we don't have those. Yet? There is talk of bicycle >> speedways, but so far it's just talk. >> > >> The only other thing I see on the road is preferred routes in and around >> cities. Most of the time these are not waymarked, it's just that the >> signposts direct you to e.g. City Center over these routes, where >> shortcuts >> through residential areas or parks may be available but not desirable. >> It's >> not really a system, I think it's mainly locally decided to guide >> cyclists >> around the block for safety. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging