On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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. > > Hi Ian, I'm all in favour of recording subjective information about the rideability of individual streets - in fact there are several other projects out there doing this already. I don't think misusing the LCN/RCN tags is the right way to do this though. A few reasons: - You can't record anything about *why* this is a good route - You can't record different levels of goodness - You can't distinguish between "this is a good route" and "this is actually a signed cycle route" Using an existing tag which has an existing tag, for a novel purpose, purely so that existing routing software will behave a certain way is exactly the definition of "tagging for the router". (Not that I believe in chanting slogans instead of actually spelling out the argument, which is why I've done so above.) And yes, "my use adds little value over a pure shortest route algorithm" - it was never my understanding (or intention) that LCN/RCN tags would be used by routers. But they're used by renderers of various kinds. Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
