Sam's message has me somewhat confused as to who said what. In terms of cycling tagging in North America, where the legal framework is fairly similar* most places, my approach has been as follows, FWIW. First of all, it gets confusing quickly because we don't have much in the way of bicycle-specific laws.
LCN makes sense for roads designated as "recommended" cycling routes. Cities like Toronto have roads and paths which have been deemed to be safe for cycling, which may or may not have cycling-specific infrastructure. RCN I'm not really sure about. To me, the Route Verte in Quebec would be a good example, though practical and perhaps linguistic reasons have led to it being classified NCN. I think that the sections of the Trans-Canada Trail that allow bicycle use would be properly tagged with NCN. As for what is useful for cyclists to determine what is a "good" cycling route, I think that the maxspeed and cycleway tags should be the highest priority. There are probably more definitions of what determines a good route than there are cyclists, so simply giving information about the infrastructure will allow each person to determine the best route for their own level of skill. * A notable exception being bylaws regarding the legality of bicycles on sidewalks. _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
