On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Felix Hartmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Network=mtb makes not much sense in my eye (and was never discussed, > approved, proposed...) as we can't differentiate then anymore between > local and regional mtb routes. > The question therefore is, what values do we want to use for network? > > Should we use ncn/rcn/lcn (because this is already quite commonly used > for route=mtb and the differentitation to cycle routes can be done > because we use route=mtb and not route=bicycle) or maybe nmn/rmn/lmn > (this would go in accoradance with "ncn" Cycle Network and "nwn" Walking > Network), or maybe go without accronyms and use "network=regional_mtb", > "network=local_mtb" .....
How many places have local/regional/national mountain biking networks? How would you tag routes that are both hiking and mountain biking? Would a "local mtb network" be something like a set of trails that link to each other at a ski resort or dedicated mountain bike park? Or perhaps even towns that are lucky enough to have mtb trails used as a form of transport... The general idea that mountain biking routes should be route=mtb, not route=bicycle, does seem sound to me; the needs of mountain bikers and normal cyclists are quite different and don't overlap much. Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
