I was reading this small arcticle, http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/germany-launches-its-national-bike-autobahn-cycle-network/422451/
So in Germany they just opened up a piece of a long bicycle highway, I was intruiged, so I started looking for it in OSM. This is how germans currently tag their velobahn / radweg NW4 http://www.bahntrassenradeln.de/details/nw4_01.htm They use ref key=RS1 With my rusty German, it took me a while to realise this is the designation of the radweg (the 100km stretch), at least if I understand this correctly. http://www.rs1.ruhr/ In OSM via ref search: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/e5G The tags seem to be: bicycle=designated description=Verlängerung Radweg Rheinische Bahn von Anbindung Grugatrasse bis Mülheim Hbf [RS1] (Fertigstellung voraussichtlich Herbst 2015) foot=no highway=cycleway name=Radweg Rheinische Bahn [RS1] ref=RS1 smoothness=excellent surface=asphalt width=4 So nothing really special besides description that this is a 'highway' and width. (and ... foot=no !). Note that this is how they tag it, it doesn't mean we should do this. Just wanted to bring this to attention. Glenn On 26-01-16 17:00, Ben Laenen wrote: > On Sunday 24 January 2016 22:38:06 Sander Deryckere wrote: >> I think we should get away from those rcn, lcn and ncn networks. And be >> freer in the allowed networks. >> >> Even now there are problems with rcn networks used for cycle nodes, as >> those are getting introduced in France and Germany, while those countries >> already use those networks for other route types. > > I agree the network tags should be rethought a little bit. We had some issues > years ago when in Antwerp they created a small network of cycle routes > through > the city, not touristic routes, but fast safe routes. These routes were at > the > time signed with markings on the ground, but have since disappeared. But now > I > think about it, I think Brussels still has similar signed routes? > > So all those networks are clashing with each other. At the very least we'll > need to start making a distinction between touristic routes and functional > routes (routes to actually go somewhere). I still like the hierarchy between > local, regional and national (and international), but we need one set of > those > for touristic routes and one for functional routes. The Brussels network > could > then be one of those local ones, the bicycle highways regional. > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
