recreational vs functional routes

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

recreational vs functional routes

joost
Hi,

Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational versus functional routes?

Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have "cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting somewhere.

In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate.

Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking.

I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful, perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something.

--
Joost Schouppe

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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson
joost schouppe <[hidden email]>:

> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France

Are these routes waymarked as special routes?

> _______________________________________________
> 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: recreational vs functional routes

Marc Gemis
AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with
https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I thought at on
some signs there is also the silhouette of a car)

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:39 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> joost schouppe <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France
>
> Are these routes waymarked as special routes?
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson
If a route meant for motor vehicles is waymarked as a recreational route, why not use the same tagging system as for other recreational routes? 

[relation]
type=route
route=Xmn where X=l (local), r (regional), n (national) or i (international) an mn is motor network
(name=...)
(operator=...)
(symbol=...)
(osmc:symbol=...)
and other relevant tags

If the route is waymarked in both directions, chances are there will be a lot of differences. You could use the role-based backward/forward ways system as is usual in cycling routes or use separate relations for the directions, then put them together in a parent relation. 

The roles in routes discussion would then apply, too.


Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 7 jan. 2020 om 20:52 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with
https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I thought at on
some signs there is also the silhouette of a car)

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:39 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> joost schouppe <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France
>
> Are these routes waymarked as special routes?
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
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: recreational vs functional routes

marc marc
In reply to this post by joost
Le 07.01.20 à 20:21, joost schouppe a écrit :
> function=recreational/practical
usage=tourism/transport ?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by joost
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:23 PM joost schouppe <[hidden email]> wrote:
Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have "cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting somewhere.

Sounds like a job for route relations.  Also a good reason why moving route refs off ways and make them exclusively relation-based is a good idea we really need to strongly consider.

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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Florimond Berthoux
In reply to this post by joost
Hi,

I would like also to be able to map four kind of cycle routes : touristic, commuting, road bike, mountain bike (mtb).
Today we can map mtb and general cycling route (most of them are touristic though not limited to them).
But unfortunately mtb and cycling routes are split in two kinds of routes.
I'd prefer to have cycle route for every kind of cycling and precise the type by an other tag (with the possibility to set multiple kind of cycle route for the same relation).
So what I’m thinking is to add tags to cycle route relation in order to precise there use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations
tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented


And for general route (and car routes) I’d say that type=road relation is what you need https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Droad
(By the way the Route des Grandes Alpes in France is also a cycle route https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_des_Grandes_Alpes )

Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 20:24, joost schouppe <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> Hi,
>
> Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational versus functional routes?
>
> Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have "cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting somewhere.
>
> In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate.
>
> Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking.
>
> I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful, perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something.
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe

--
Florimond Berthoux

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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

dieterdreist
Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <[hidden email]>:
tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling


where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?

 
road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented


to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater detail) by presence of mtb:scale tags
maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1). Also smoothness could help.


Cheers
Martin



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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson
waymarked mtb routes are tagged route=mtb on the relation
waymarked cycling routes are tagged route=bicycle on the relation. 

I don't know how I could verify that a cycling route is either touristic or for commute/everyday cycling or both. Even if advertised as touristic it can be used for commute/everyday cycling, ande the other way around. 
I do not foresee significant mapping of these purposes. 

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 15:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:
Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <[hidden email]>:
tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling


where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?

 
road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented


to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater detail) by presence of mtb:scale tags
maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1). Also smoothness could help.


Cheers
Martin


_______________________________________________
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: recreational vs functional routes

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by joost
Joost Schouppe wrote:
> In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> for routers to be able to differentiate.

Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an
optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.

I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a road bike
route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's signposted as a
bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or touring
purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is wholly
unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is highway=trunk
or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although it's a
signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more akin to a
standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.

cheers
Richard

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html



--
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: recreational vs functional routes

Florimond Berthoux
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
Ok, you need examples :
this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130&layers=C
this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599&layers=C as you can see in this video https://youtu.be/1dGtSZbUKew

mtb:scale / surfaces tags are for ways not relation.

Of course nobody will blame you if you use a touristic route for commuting, and adding a tag tourism=yes doesn’t imply it can’t be used by every day cyclists.

What the point? If you are a commuter you’ll focus on fast and safe route, so you’ll prefer REVe Nord-Sud than Eurovelo 3 at this place https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=18/48.86796/2.35391/cyclosm
For instance, this information can be used for rendering map (like CyclOSM on which I work) or routers (a tourist profile routing will prefer tourism route).

Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 16:10, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> a écrit :
waymarked mtb routes are tagged route=mtb on the relation
waymarked cycling routes are tagged route=bicycle on the relation. 

I don't know how I could verify that a cycling route is either touristic or for commute/everyday cycling or both. Even if advertised as touristic it can be used for commute/everyday cycling, ande the other way around. 
I do not foresee significant mapping of these purposes. 

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 15:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:
Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <[hidden email]>:
tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling


where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?

 
road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented


to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater detail) by presence of mtb:scale tags
maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1). Also smoothness could help.


Cheers
Martin


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


--
Florimond Berthoux

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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]>:
Joost Schouppe wrote:
> In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> for routers to be able to differentiate.

Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an
optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.

I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a road bike
route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's signposted as a
bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or touring
purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is wholly
unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is highway=trunk
or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although it's a
signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more akin to a
standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.

cheers
Richard

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html



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

_______________________________________________
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: recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Florimond Berthoux

Florimond Berthoux <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:


I can't see the signposting of the routes in the videos, I assume because I don't know where to look? 

Of course nobody will blame you if you use a touristic route for commuting, and adding a tag tourism=yes doesn’t imply it can’t be used by every day cyclists.

What the point? If you are a commuter you’ll focus on fast and safe route, so you’ll prefer REVe Nord-Sud than Eurovelo 3 at this place https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=18/48.86796/2.35391/cyclosm
For instance, this information can be used for rendering map (like CyclOSM on which I work) or routers (a tourist profile routing will prefer tourism route).

(just playing devil's advocate)
Wouldn't renderers and routers prefer road attributes? 

_______________________________________________
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: recreational vs functional routes

Florimond Berthoux
Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 22:05, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> Florimond Berthoux <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Ok, you need examples :
> this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130&layers=C
> this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599&layers=C as you can see in this video https://youtu.be/1dGtSZbUKew
> and this is for road cycling https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163270#map=15/48.8577/2.2333&layers=C as you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwNlVjTOKU
>
>
> I can't see the signposting of the routes in the videos, I assume because I don't know where to look?

You don't need signpost to have a route.

The topic is not how to map that, but how can I tag more precisely the
purpose of a cycle route.

--
Florimond Berthoux

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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson
> You don't need signpost to have a route.

I disagree. If there is nothing on the ground, there is no mappable route.

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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Warin
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
I think;
Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.

For those that see no need for these classes .. what harm will they do to the data base?

I am ignoring the 'verification' argument for the time being.

P.S. I personally see no need to specify how a power line is attached to a pole .. others are quite happy to map such detail.  So I have no objection to there mapping, I will never use it nor map it.


On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]>:
Joost Schouppe wrote:
> In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> for routers to be able to differentiate.

Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an
optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.

I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a road bike
route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's signposted as a
bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or touring
purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is wholly
unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is highway=trunk
or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although it's a
signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more akin to a
standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.

cheers
Richard

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html



--
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: recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson
Warin <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven

> I think;
> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.

I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Hint: Nederland.

> For those that see no need for these classes .. what harm will they do to the data base?
>
> I am ignoring the 'verification' argument for the time being.
>
> P.S. I personally see no need to specify how a power line is attached to a pole .. others are quite happy to map such detail.  So I have no objection to there mapping, I will never use it nor map it.
>
>
> On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.
>>
>> Best, Peter Elderson

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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Andy Townsend
On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Warin <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven
>
>> I think;
>> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
>> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
> I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
>
> Hint: Nederland.

Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true
everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I
tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good
shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 ,
where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the
UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it
too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without
the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of
the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for
walkers never mind cyclists.

Not so far away is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which
is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is
probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a
normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).

Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other
factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between
Perth and Albany in Australia (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US
routes.

Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: recreational vs functional routes

Marc Gemis
I assume those characteristics are mapped on the OSM-ways representing
the roads, not on the relation.
As far as I understand Peter's arguments, the fact that a bicycle
route is suitable for recreation, commuting, skilled MTB'ers and so
on, should be determined from the characteristics of the roads in the
relation, not from some tag on the relation.

If we go back the Joost's original question of cycle highways vs. node
network or local roundtrip routes. Do we need a tag on the relation to
distinguish one as commute and the other as recreational? Where is
this information useful?

Suppose I want a fast commute, can the router give me a ride over a
lot of bicycle highways without tags on the relation? Or can that be
done just by the characteristics of the roads in that relation? Or
because they form an almost uninterrupted straight line next to a
railway?

On the other hand, can the system give me touristic routes that allow
me to explore an area, or will it send me over cycle highways which
are not meant for that purpose? A node network or a local round trip
is meant for that.

The original question was how can we tag the difference between a
route representing a cycle highway and a note network. Peter, you
recently worked hard to introduce a new tag to distinguish cycle
networks from other routes. Can we use that tag, with a different
value, for cycle highways to separate them from the others?

But then we do not solve the problems for touristic car routes and for
the examples Florimand gave.

regards

m

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Warin <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven
> >
> >> I think;
> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
> >
> > Hint: Nederland.
>
> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
> generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true
> everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I
> tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good
> shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 ,
> where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the
> UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it
> too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without
> the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of
> the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for
> walkers never mind cyclists.
>
> Not so far away is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which
> is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is
> probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a
> normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).
>
> Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other
> factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between
> Perth and Albany in Australia (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US
> routes.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: recreational vs functional routes

Warin
A 'tourist' route would usually target scenery, history the occasional eatery. 
It should be 'interesting' to the visitor. 
The surface, smoothness is of concern to the sports car driver or the road racing bicycle rider where they want a good road. 
For different reasons the tourist in a 4WD or MTB may prefer a far less well developed 'road'.  
But both the above groups will be after 'interest' for them in a 'tourist' route.

A 'commuting' route would usually be the quickest way from A to Z without regard to beauty, history etc. 
Of no real interest to the user other than to get from A to Z.
Beauty, scenery are not things well tagged in OSM, and not something that would be well evaluated by remote mapping.  
The other thing of real concern to bicycle riders is elevation changes.. these are challenging. Bicycle routes usually avoid them, there are those after that challenge though. 
Again this is not something well mapped in OSM.

Some will say 'interest' is a subjective thing. Well it is recognized by tourist boards who establish them, provide maps and sign post them. 
Those who have used them find some better than others, but again that is subjective. 


On 10/1/20 3:37 pm, Marc Gemis wrote:
I assume those characteristics are mapped on the OSM-ways representing
the roads, not on the relation.
As far as I understand Peter's arguments, the fact that a bicycle
route is suitable for recreation, commuting, skilled MTB'ers and so
on, should be determined from the characteristics of the roads in the
relation, not from some tag on the relation.

If we go back the Joost's original question of cycle highways vs. node
network or local roundtrip routes. Do we need a tag on the relation to
distinguish one as commute and the other as recreational? Where is
this information useful?

Suppose I want a fast commute, can the router give me a ride over a
lot of bicycle highways without tags on the relation? Or can that be
done just by the characteristics of the roads in that relation? Or
because they form an almost uninterrupted straight line next to a
railway?

On the other hand, can the system give me touristic routes that allow
me to explore an area, or will it send me over cycle highways which
are not meant for that purpose? A node network or a local round trip
is meant for that.

The original question was how can we tag the difference between a
route representing a cycle highway and a note network. Peter, you
recently worked hard to introduce a new tag to distinguish cycle
networks from other routes. Can we use that tag, with a different
value, for cycle highways to separate them from the others?

But then we do not solve the problems for touristic car routes and for
the examples Florimand gave.

regards

m

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM Andy Townsend [hidden email] wrote:
On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:
Warin [hidden email] het volgende geschreven

I think;
Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Hint: Nederland.
Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true
everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I
tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good
shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 ,
where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the
UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it
too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without
the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of
the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for
walkers never mind cyclists.

Not so far away is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which
is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is
probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a
normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).

Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other
factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between
Perth and Albany in Australia (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US
routes.

Best Regards,

Andy




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



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