Cycling relation misuse

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Cycling relation misuse

Tagging mailing list
Questions about using cycle relations properly:

I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There are a lot of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and other water features out into the countryside, making up a regional system, and a lot of smaller local cycling roads (also along small rivers) that connect neighborhoods and towns together. 

I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into relations and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc). 

But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle routes: mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise labeled as a “cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.


- They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are trunk roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever. 

-they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated cycle lanes - just regular roads.

- they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no purpose for travelers or commuters.

- they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to ( 関東地方サイクリングロード・ネットワーク ). https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094  also seems to be made-up and not official either - the name only returns one result (the OSM data page) when searched.  



To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have the route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts. 

I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should be mapped in strava or a similar workout app. 

Javbw

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Joseph Eisenberg
Have you discussed this with the individual mappers via changeset messages or on a Japanese forum/mailing list?

Joseph

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:12 PM John Willis via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
Questions about using cycle relations properly:

I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There are a lot of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and other water features out into the countryside, making up a regional system, and a lot of smaller local cycling roads (also along small rivers) that connect neighborhoods and towns together. 

I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into relations and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc). 

But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle routes: mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise labeled as a “cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.


- They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are trunk roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever. 

-they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated cycle lanes - just regular roads.

- they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no purpose for travelers or commuters.

- they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to ( 関東地方サイクリングロード・ネットワーク ). https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094  also seems to be made-up and not official either - the name only returns one result (the OSM data page) when searched.  



To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have the route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts. 

I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should be mapped in strava or a similar workout app. 

Javbw
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Warin
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On 11/10/19 18:04, John Willis via Tagging wrote:

> Questions about using cycle relations properly:
>
> I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There
> are a lot of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and
> other water features out into the countryside, making up a regional
> system, and a lot of smaller local cycling roads (also along small
> rivers) that connect neighborhoods and towns together.
> example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3218181
>
> I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into
> relations and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc).
>
> But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle
> routes: mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise
> labeled as a “cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.
>
> example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8066243
>
> - They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are
> trunk roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever.

There is no requirement for a cycle route to use cycleways, even in part.
>
> -they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated
> cycle lanes - just regular roads.
>
> - they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no
> purpose for travelers or commuters.

Never the less they could be seen as cycle routes - frequently used by
cyclists?

>
> - they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The
> Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to (
> 関東地方サイクリングロード・ネットワーク ).
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094 also seems to be
> made-up and not official either - the name only returns one result
> (the OSM data page) when searched.
>
>
>
> To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have
> the route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts.

I have had a commuting cyclist map into OSM cycling lanes .. that are
not there, shared paths that are not shared.. I would much rather that
were mapped as routes showing the actual infrastructure that is there.

>
> I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should
> be mapped in strava or a similar workout app.

If the route shows that regular roads are used .. possibly use the
description key to state the nature of the route?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Tagging mailing list
Am I misunderstanding something fundamental?  Mapping cycle route relations Sounds a lot like mapping bus routes: mapping the designated routes of existing public/private routes seems to be useful - mapping where you like to drive your RV around With a bus route relation and inter-mixing that into official bus route relations sounds like a disaster.

I was under the impression cycle route relations (especially with a network=* designation) were for mapping designated cycleway routes - not mapping wherever bicycle=yes is implicit or implied, or whatever route I happen to enjoy riding on weekends.

Of course The the relation can include any way - it might include cycle Lanes in large roads or segments of roads used to link cycling roads together - but just any random road your cycling club likes to ride on the weekend? A route that is 100% trunk road from end-to-end with 0% cycling lanes or paths and no official designation as a route for cyclists? Is that part of a "cycling route network?" Is my favorite Canoeing path around a lake ferry route relation?

It reeks of polluting the actual designated cycling routes (which are not even half-finished in my area, relation-wise) with relations of random roads which are just regular roads, with no designation for cyclists. It's like if I designated my daily commute a "cycle route relation, network=local" just so I can get a bright blue line in OpenCycleMap, rather than creating/downloading a route in my cycling app on my phone for my own private use - mapping for the renderer IMO.

Is there something Im not understanding? Can anyone make a route relation for any Way regardless if it is actually a designated oute by a city, signed, or publically documented?

Javbw

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 5:58 PM, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/19 18:04, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
>> Questions about using cycle relations properly:
>>
>> I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There are a lot of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and other water features out into the countryside, making up a regional system, and a lot of smaller local cycling roads (also along small rivers) that connect neighborhoods and towns together.
>> example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3218181
>>
>> I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into relations and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc).
>>
>> But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle routes: mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise labeled as a “cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.
>>
>> example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8066243
>>
>> - They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are trunk roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever.
>
> There is no requirement for a cycle route to use cycleways, even in part.
>>
>> -they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated cycle lanes - just regular roads.
>>
>> - they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no purpose for travelers or commuters.
>
> Never the less they could be seen as cycle routes - frequently used by cyclists?
>
>>
>> - they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to ( 関東地方サイクリングロード・ネットワーク ). https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094 also seems to be made-up and not official either - the name only returns one result (the OSM data page) when searched.
>>
>>
>>
>> To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have the route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts.
>
> I have had a commuting cyclist map into OSM cycling lanes .. that are not there, shared paths that are not shared.. I would much rather that were mapped as routes showing the actual infrastructure that is there.
>
>>
>> I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should be mapped in strava or a similar workout app.
>
> If the route shows that regular roads are used .. possibly use the description key to state the nature of the route?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
John Willis wrote:
> I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that
> should be mapped in strava or a similar workout app.

Fully agree. Go for it.

OSM is for verifiable, signposted cycle routes and verifiable, real cycling
infrastructure. If a route is on the way to being signposted then it can be
mapped with state=proposed.

There are literally millions of personal favourite rides in guidebooks and
on third-party websites but with no supporting evidence on the ground. There
is no place for these in OSM.

(I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and routing
codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or otherwise
unsuitable.)

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

dieterdreist
Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 12:38 Uhr schrieb Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]>:
(I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and routing
codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or otherwise
unsuitable.)


wouldn't it be better to delete them from OSM if they are made up?

Cheers
Martin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Richard Fairhurst
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> wouldn't it be better to delete them from OSM if they are made up?

It would, but I have limited hours in the day to police every single cycle
route relation in OSM.

I lose track of the amount of time I spent on user messages and changeset
comments trying to get the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route properly tagged
as route=mtb... it even says Mountain Bike in its name, for crying out loud.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Are you able to properly verify these are all "Random road your cycling
club likes to ride on the weekend" & not designated/signed routes?

ATM it appears you're vetting them purely on the class of highway used.

Designated cycle routes can go along "just regular roads, with no
designation for cyclists."

DaveF





_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst


11 Oct 2019, 12:37 by [hidden email]
(I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and routing
codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or otherwise
unsuitable.)
Can you list made-up lines that pollute OSM?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


11 Oct 2019, 12:18 by [hidden email]:

Is there something Im not understanding? Can anyone make a route relation for any Way regardless if it is actually a designated oute by a city, signed, or publically documented?
Such tagging for rendering happens
but is incorrect and should be deleted.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Tagging mailing list
On Oct 11, 2019, at 8:52 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can anyone make a route relation for any Way regardless if it is actually a designated oute by a city, signed, or publically documented?
Such tagging for rendering happens
but is incorrect and should be deleted.

This is what my gut told me. I’ll be careful as I go through them in the next few months. I research the designated routes by actually cycling them and looking up the governmental maps of their routes. so many of them incomplete.

Javbw

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On 11/10/2019 12:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

11 Oct 2019, 12:37 by [hidden email]
(I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and routing
codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or otherwise
unsuitable.)
Can you list made-up lines that pollute OSM?

(I'm not Richard and these aren't cycle routes but) I've recently set a couple of walking routes to "name:signed=no" based on walking significant portions of them and never seeing a sign:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8450999

Incomplete "The Inn Way"; appears to be from an out of print book.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6367972

"Three Feathers Walk (Kilburn)", original source unclear but listed at LDWA.

I did wonder whether it was worth asking on talk-gb whether they should be deleted, but didn't bother in the end.


A couple of other examples that I have not seen signage for are:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7336319 (Wainwright's Coast to Coast)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1996318 (Lyke Wake Walk)

I was the last editor of both of those (editing path changes around Chop Gate), but only saw waymarks for the Cleveland Way.  The second of these predates many of the national trails, the first is as well established as and probably walked more than many national trails.  Both are now much more than just "a favourite walk" or "something somebody created to sell a book".

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Phyks
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
Hi,

I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
"tag to render".

I'd say we either need subtags to precise and categorize the cycle
routes or some clear definition in the wiki.

Here are a few examples of what I mean by "too diverse":

* Some are racing routes, which have been added to OSM as a cycle route
but are by no means usable (no indication on the terrain, huge highways)
outside of the race. See
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Epreuve-Cyclo-randonnee-Paris-Brest-Paris-dans-OSM-td5924677.html
for instance (in French), now removed.

* Some are real roads with an official entity maintaining them (signs,
tourist maps, official documentation), with varying quality of
infrastructure but always a legal status. See for instance
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2246847 (very bad infrastructure,
but official signs in the streets) or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445738 (tourist road, official
organism in charge of maintaining it, dedicated and very good
infrastructure).

* Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists, often
racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes, we might have
`route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical example is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 (which might actually fall
into the tag to render category)

* Some have no official existence, but a practical one. Take
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664028 for instance, this is
just a (long) cycleway in Paris. There are no special signs, nothing
special, but everyone refers to it by this acronym, "REV", and it is
widely known. These are actually very hard to discriminate with the "tag
to render" and might easily fall back in this category.

So, in short, I think a clearer definition of what should be a cycle
route (with regards to an official entity, a widely used name or
anything else) and some tags for subcategorizing it further for special
uses (not made for any cyclist) could probaby help a lot!

Best,
--
Phyks
Le 11/10/2019 à 13:52, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
>
>
> 11 Oct 2019, 12:18 by [hidden email]:
>>
>> Is there something Im not understanding? Can anyone make a route relation for any Way regardless if it is actually a designated oute by a city, signed, or publically documented?
>>
> Such tagging for rendering happens
> but is incorrect and should be deleted.
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Warin
On 12/10/19 03:28, Phyks wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
> broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
> perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
> rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
> try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
> "tag to render".
>
> I'd say we either need subtags to precise and categorize the cycle
> routes or some clear definition in the wiki.
>
> Here are a few examples of what I mean by "too diverse":
>
> * Some are racing routes, which have been added to OSM as a cycle route
> but are by no means usable (no indication on the terrain, huge highways)
> outside of the race. See
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Epreuve-Cyclo-randonnee-Paris-Brest-Paris-dans-OSM-td5924677.html
> for instance (in French), now removed.
>
> * Some are real roads with an official entity maintaining them (signs,
> tourist maps, official documentation), with varying quality of
> infrastructure but always a legal status. See for instance
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2246847 (very bad infrastructure,
> but official signs in the streets) or
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445738 (tourist road, official
> organism in charge of maintaining it, dedicated and very good
> infrastructure).
>
> * Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists, often
> racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes, we might have
> `route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical example is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 (which might actually fall
> into the tag to render category)
>
> * Some have no official existence, but a practical one. Take
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664028 for instance, this is
> just a (long) cycleway in Paris. There are no special signs, nothing
> special, but everyone refers to it by this acronym, "REV", and it is
> widely known. These are actually very hard to discriminate with the "tag
> to render" and might easily fall back in this category.
>
> So, in short, I think a clearer definition of what should be a cycle
> route (with regards to an official entity, a widely used name or
> anything else) and some tags for subcategorizing it further for special
> uses (not made for any cyclist) could probaby help a lot!
>

While motor vehicles have road classifications to say which roads should be preferred cyclists have little.

There are a few 'official' maps (some by councils, cities and some even by cycling clubs) of usually disjointed routes but little to indicate what route to use from A to B. These could be for commuting, sightseeing or touring.

There are the 'racing routes' used by competitive cyclists both during a race and to practice for it.

So I too would like to see some additional tags for cycling routes.

P.S. It is now magpie season in Australia, cable ties are applied to bicycle helmets to keep them away from human flesh ..

https://www.magpiealert.com/






_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Phyks


On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
"tag to render".


Similar to how bus routes are laid over existing road infrastructure, I think there should be a big distinction between the paths/crossings/roads that are assembled to make a cycling “road", and some route that people have come up with just for exercising that is just some generic road in rural area people go touring on. 

- Cycling roads/routes for travel/transportation with some kind of documented status with the government. 

- MTB routes, usually using off-road ways & infrastructure - documented by the maintainer of the route, whoever that is.

- roads used by cyclists for exercise/racing, with no documentation or signage - usually shared via online route-sharing sites.

if you are making a map of the cycling routes available, I would assume the first category is the most important, and possibly the only one that should be prominently rendered.

similar to how we render roads, the prominence of motorways pales to the prominence of lesser roads.  Please include them, but we would need tagging to show the purpose of the route, beyond “network” or what super-relation they belong to. 

This might be difficult, as the usage probably vary from region to region: MTB routes in Japan are negligible, and dedicated cycling roads abound. Whereas in San Deigo, there are zero “cycling roads” that are maintained by the government, and probably a lot of documented MTB routes in the wilderness parks.

but documenting & rendering any route that a cycle club enjoys cycling on the weekend? unneeded. a motorcycle club’s favorite route in the mountains is unworthy of a route relation as well.  

OSM is not an online route-sharing site. 

here is a “Nikko Loop” route made by some cyclist who enjoys cycling. 


This is the job of this other private website (ridewithgps.com) - document and share routes for cyclist users. But Nikko City has no documentation for such a route, and shouldn’t be included in OSM. 


Javbw


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Mateusz Konieczny-3



12 Oct 2019, 04:27 by [hidden email]:


On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
"tag to render".


Similar to how bus routes are laid over existing road infrastructure, I think there should be a big distinction between the paths/crossings/roads that are assembled to make a cycling “road", and some route that people have come up with just for exercising that is just some generic road in rural area people go touring on. 

- Cycling roads/routes for travel/transportation with some kind of documented status with the government. 

- MTB routes, usually using off-road ways & infrastructure - documented by the maintainer of the route, whoever that is.

- roads used by cyclists for exercise/racing, with no documentation or signage - usually shared via online route-sharing sites.

if you are making a map of the cycling routes available, I would assume the first category is the most important, and possibly the only one that should be prominently rendered.

similar to how we render roads, the prominence of motorways pales to the prominence of lesser roads.  Please include them, but we would need tagging to show the purpose of the route, beyond “network” or what super-relation they belong to. 

This might be difficult, as the usage probably vary from region to region: MTB routes in Japan are negligible, and dedicated cycling roads abound. Whereas in San Deigo, there are zero “cycling roads” that are maintained by the government, and probably a lot of documented MTB routes in the wilderness parks.

but documenting & rendering any route that a cycle club enjoys cycling on the weekend? unneeded. a motorcycle club’s favorite route in the mountains is unworthy of a route relation as well.  

OSM is not an online route-sharing site. 

here is a “Nikko Loop” route made by some cyclist who enjoys cycling. 


This is the job of this other private website (ridewithgps.com) - document and share routes for cyclist users. But Nikko City has no documentation for such a route, and shouldn’t be included in OSM.
In case of nagging such distinction it
would be good to make clear that
unsigned routes must not be mapped and should be deleted.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Phyks

11 Oct 2019, 18:28 by [hidden email]:
with varying quality of
infrastructure but always a legal status. See for instance
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2246847 (very bad infrastructure,
but official signs in the streets) or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445738 (tourist road, official
organism in charge of maintaining it, dedicated and very good
infrastructure).
This can be handled by looking at 
roads/cycleways building relation,
right?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Phyks
Phyks wrote:
> * Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists,
> often racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes,
> we might have `route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical
> example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 
> (which might actually fall into the tag to render category)

Agreed. I raised this in
 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html

in connection with https://www.visitsnowdonia.info/ffordd-brailsford-way,
which is a signposted bike route (two routes, in fact) around North Wales,
but entirely unsuitable except for experienced cyclists on road bikes - much
of it is on highway=trunk. A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a
good way to go.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Tagging mailing list

On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:

A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a
good way to go.

Route=
cycle_touring
road_touring
cyclist
road_cyclist
road_cycling

 ?

I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping actual racing routes.

Javbw


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling relation misuse

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Netherlands usage is: the route must have some physical representation on the roads. Preferably waymarked all the way. But long routes tend to use local/regional/national sections as parts, so the waymarking does not have to be the same everywhere. Also, some routes are scarcely or even barely signed, still, when zooming out they are clear trails. 
Personally, I would even allow routes which consist of e.g. a list of places to visit, with a sign at the central square or the main church naming and showing the route. Some sections of Jacob’s trails and other european internation routes work like that.

But, just documentation on a website or a book describing a route: I would oppose that.

Mvg Peter Elderson

Op 12 okt. 2019 om 04:27 heeft John Willis via Tagging <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:



On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too
broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering
perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM
rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to
try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just
"tag to render".


Similar to how bus routes are laid over existing road infrastructure, I think there should be a big distinction between the paths/crossings/roads that are assembled to make a cycling “road", and some route that people have come up with just for exercising that is just some generic road in rural area people go touring on. 

- Cycling roads/routes for travel/transportation with some kind of documented status with the government. 

- MTB routes, usually using off-road ways & infrastructure - documented by the maintainer of the route, whoever that is.

- roads used by cyclists for exercise/racing, with no documentation or signage - usually shared via online route-sharing sites.

if you are making a map of the cycling routes available, I would assume the first category is the most important, and possibly the only one that should be prominently rendered.

similar to how we render roads, the prominence of motorways pales to the prominence of lesser roads.  Please include them, but we would need tagging to show the purpose of the route, beyond “network” or what super-relation they belong to. 

This might be difficult, as the usage probably vary from region to region: MTB routes in Japan are negligible, and dedicated cycling roads abound. Whereas in San Deigo, there are zero “cycling roads” that are maintained by the government, and probably a lot of documented MTB routes in the wilderness parks.

but documenting & rendering any route that a cycle club enjoys cycling on the weekend? unneeded. a motorcycle club’s favorite route in the mountains is unworthy of a route relation as well.  

OSM is not an online route-sharing site. 

here is a “Nikko Loop” route made by some cyclist who enjoys cycling. 


This is the job of this other private website (ridewithgps.com) - document and share routes for cyclist users. But Nikko City has no documentation for such a route, and shouldn’t be included in OSM. 


Javbw

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12