On 4 December 2012 11:12, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me, a "bicycle route" is much more about navigability than desirability > for cycling. That is, when you "follow a bicycle route", it should be easy > to follow - based on signs, or good external (and official) documentation. > Whether it has painted bike lanes is irrelevant. > We're heading towards a day when everybody will have a routing application on their mobile device or accessible elsewhere. So navigation is a diminishing issue, and desirability for cycling is an increasing one. If there is no cycling amenity of any kind, then it is just a route? How does it differ from any other just by being signed? If we start including roads with no cycling amenity, then we devalue every other quality cycle route we mark. Because an end user can no longer expect cycle amenity from a marked cycle route they become worthless to most of our urban cyclist users who are looking for just that. Of course amenity can come in many varied forms, so I don't mean cycle lanes. However, I accept that things like railtrails, long distance cycle routes, etc are exceptions here - where even poor amenity may want to be included in the route. I'm not quite sure how we distinguish these type of trails where people are trying to fill in the gaps, from some of the just plain stupid mapped/signed routes that pass for cycle routes in some council areas. Ian.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
