Beside my proposal for bicycle subtype route, I read again the tourism wiki
« Places and things of specific interest to tourists including places to
see, places to stay, things and places providing information and support to
tourists. »
« 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 <> 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

Florimond Berthoux
Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to