The road properties are mapped on the road. The relation (also for
motorways) should not impose this. The E34-relation contains segments
with traffic signals, so it's not all freeway/motorway.
We should differentiate between fiets-o-strade-the-cycleway and
fiets-o-strade-the-route. The latter can contain cycleways and
residential roads imho.
Maybe we should invent something like
highway=cycleway;cycleway=fiets-o-strade for the former.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Ben: I was also thinking about proposed, but I don't like how this is not
> in the main tag. Instead of route=bicycle + state=proposed, I would prefer
> something like route:proposed=bicycle. Then you automatically break data-use
> that hasn't heared about these 2000 objects worldwide that have a breaking
> extra tag. I can see how that would be annoying. Still, the specialists
> (cycle layer, waymarkedtrails) seem to know about it, so I suppose that ship
> has sailed.
> @all: so it would be OK to map "official detours", if signposted.
> Subquestion: But a Fietsostrade is more than a cycle route, it also comes
> with certain assumptions about road properties (much like a car motorway
> does). The official detour would definitely be missing those features. I
> would say that as long as there is no one-on-one between the route and the
> road features, data users should not make assumptions about "this is part of
> a fietsostrade route, hence it will have fietsostrade infrastructure". And
> we should map those properties that make it special on the segments only.
> The alternative would be to have two types of relations or two types of
> roles within a relation.
> Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be mailing list