> From: [hidden email] > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australian tagging guidelines for Cycle Map > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Luke Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote: > > OK, now that I seem to have the hang of this system, i'll bring this issue > > to the table. > > > > I recently added to the Wikiproject Victoria, Australia wiki page some bike > > route tagging guidelines using relations. I wrote that off-road routes be > > tagged as rcn and on-road routes as lcn. > > > > BlueMM posted a reply suggesting that we put the guidelines up for debate. > > How do you guys think we should go about this? > > > I have to admit that I don't find rcn = off-road and lcn = on-road. > We already have surface=unpaved to indicate off-road. > > In fact some trails such as Merri Creek Trail consist off both paved > and unpaved sections. > > Now that I think about it, perhaps you didn't mean paved/unpaved but > actually you meant cars are also allowed on the route or not. I'm a > mountain biker so off-road to me means something best ridden on a mtb. > > There are also issues with this, for example the monee ponds creek > trail has a small section that is on-road. > > So no solutions from me, just some issues to think about. > > So in summary it would be nice if the cycle map could indicate the > type of track, on or off road, paved or unpaved (perhaps more > appropiately suitable for road bike or not).
Ok, hopefully this message works.
Yeah i'll clarify. I did mean on-road routes as routes which are actually on roads (such as quiet local streets, roads with bike lanes etc. and off-road routes as bike paths and tracks, irrelevent of surface. I'm not sure if the type of surface renders but it would be good if it does.
I had a play with tagging bike routes as relations, but decided that although it might be a good approach for bus routes where different number buses go down the same named streets, I could not see any advantage for bike routes which, at least in Sydney with the exception of Marrickville, do not seem to have route numbers. It may be inexperience on my part with relations, but I had the following problem. One section of the route was not rendered how I would expect, but I could not determine if this was because the way was missing from the relations route as there was a long list of ways all just called ways. My conclusion was that it was better at add the lcn to the way properties.
In regards to your bike paths vs streets, I would have thought this would be determined by the way definition (ie highway=cycleway, highway=residential).
On Thu Jun 12 10:14 , Luke Woolley sent:
OK, now that I seem to have the hang of this system, i'll bring this issue to the table.
I recently added to the Wikiproject Victoria, Australia wiki page some bike route tagging guidelines using relations. I wrote that off-road routes be tagged as rcn and on-road routes as lcn.
BlueMM posted a reply suggesting that we put the guidelines up for debate. How do you guys think we should go about this?