On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Nicholas Barker <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi Steve/Frank > [replying back to list, looks like that was your intention] > > First up IMO I wouldn't be putting the Mawson as an NCN. > > Any kind of 'cycle network' including a 'national one' implies that it > will be negotiable by most, if not all bicycles. This would require a good > quality firm surface. The Mawson is sold as a long distance MTB route. > Whilst in reality a good proportion of it is on (boring) unsealed roads > there are many sections that would be a struggle on anything other than a > mountain bike or sturdy hybrid. > We had 9 in our group. 4 mountain bikes, 3 touring bikes, 2 cyclocrosses, all pretty heavily loaded. Yes, it's rough in places, and a couple of sections at the far north were genuine "mountain biking". But it's so far from anywhere that there's basically no chance of anyone thinking "oh I know, I'll just take this beautiful bike path called the Mawson Trail from Blinman to Quorn - OH GOD IT'S SO ROUGH" :) > > I made the mistake of tagging the bicentennial as a NCN a while > back....ooops. > Yeah, but large parts of the BNT aren't rideable on *anything*. > As for routes i believe that it should only be tagged if its signed as a > route or there is other strong evidence of it being a route...Wikipedia > entry below > > A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often > *predetermined > and publicized*. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by people and > vehicles > Sounds good to me. I'd emphasise the presence of some kind of physical signage, even if it's a bit sparse and incomplete. > > I will only tag a LCN/RCN/NCN route if i either see: > Signs > Plans from authorities that 'own' the infrastructure (softcopy or > hardcopy) - e.g. a councils 'cycling plan' > Literature from associations that have the backing of the 'owning > authority' - e.g. scenic routes such as the Mawson/Kidman/Goldfields Trek > etc. > Agreed. > > I don't agree with LCN/RCN/NCN routes that have been tagged: > apparently popular (unless it is publicized) - an example was a local > cycling club have tagged their regular road criterium route as an > LCN....useless to anyone who isn't in the club. > Agreed. > for a one off event/bike ride - someone once tagged an 'organised and > popular cycle ride' that occurred only once along the route they tagged. > This is wrong and just cluttering the map with useless information. The > following year the event used a completely different route anyway... > just because the tagger thought it was a 'nice route/ride' - had one of > these tagged through western Victoria - its still there i think. > Yeah, I think we just need to encourage these people to go to more suitable places like bikely, mapmyride, strava... > > HOWEVER.....MTB routes are a whole different kettle of fish i think which > needs some more discussion/guidelines as the feature is used in a more > 'unofficial' way with route suggestions from users etc. I am guilty of > tagging mtb friendly singletracks as 'routes' purely so other MTBers are > aware that they are legal, ride-able and fun... > Also agreed. mtb=yes is one way of doing that. I would prefer that route=mtb means there is some kind of official backing behind it, including a rating, but I definitely your need, and I don't think it causes many problems. > > Maybe there needs to be a different tag that isnt a route but shows up in > opencyclemap as 'MTB suggested' > IMHO, don't be too fixated on OpenCycleMap. The styling is pretty ugly, the maintainer isn't especially open to feedback, and doesn't seem to care all that much about tagging outside the UK. A site I run, http://cycletour.org, does show mtb=yes tags (a pink halo). https://www.dropbox.com/s/b8kjc1h5v0x8mju/Screenshot%202014-12-15%2013.19.46.png?dl=0 Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
