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 Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
