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 <61sundow...@gmail.com> 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 > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
