On 6 December 2012 08:49, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Generally the case, but not always. My bicycle sign on Parramatta road >> being my best example so I'm sticking with it. A cycle route down a narrow >> three lane road, carrying trucks who'd soon as take you out as look at >> you.... >> > > >> Well, I guess I'm focussed on being alive when I get to B. >> >> > These use cases are handled by routing software making good use of data > such as cycleway=lane. Using the lcn/rcn tagging system to mark > safety/suitability is simply incorrect. In your example, there's a signed > bicycle route - so we map it. To do otherwise would be like not mapping a > car park because we don't think people should park there, or not mapping a > school because we don't think it's a good one. >
Hi Steve, Yes! we are overloading the cycle route to not simply mean this is a way to get from A to B but also to mean a good way to cycle there. So, yes, we are giving two meanings to the same tag. Yours is simply navigational, and mine assures a minimum level of amenity in urban areas. I'd argue my use adds substantial value to a router. Your use adds little value over a pure shortest route algorithm. Ian.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
