Beside my proposal for bicycle subtype route, I read again the tourism wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism « Places and things of specific interest to tourists including places to see, places to stay, things and places providing information and support to tourists. » and « tourism=yes : To add tourist interest to something described by other tags. »
So, if a route is a thing of specific interest to tourist, I see no good reason to not tag it with tourism=yes. (And I don't understand why it shouldn't be used on relation since here it's the route relation which is touristic.) Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 20:24, joost schouppe <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi, > > Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational > versus functional routes? > > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes > for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in > France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in > Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those > routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have > "cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting > somewhere. > > In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of > cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate. > > Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off > tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking. > > I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful, > perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something. > > -- > Joost Schouppe > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Florimond Berthoux
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
