We do it for motorised vehicles. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Andy Robinson <ajrli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But why does this need special treatment? We don’t do it for any other > mode of transport.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers**** > > Andy**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 10 May 2012 10:08 > *To:* Richard Fairhurst > *Cc:* talk@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on > long-distance routes**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> > wrote:**** > > But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this > thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain? > > cheers > Richard**** > > That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for > touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if > unresolved, distinction in Utrecht). **** > > **** > > OSM tagging of cycle routes seems dominated by the touristic approach, and > this limits the usefulness of the data if you're more interested in utility > cycling.**** > > **** > > Looking at the Dutch guidance, they define a main cycle route as one that > has more than 2000 cyclists per day (other countries might settle for a > lower threshold!). These account for about 20% of the lanes/tracks, but > about 80% of the distance cycled. At that sort of volume, signposting is a > bit irrelevant; it's more down to observing the dominant flows of cyclists > (typically reinforced by above-average facilities, though not always). In > an ideal world, you'd do proper counts and derive the data from bottom up, > but given that it's usually pretty obvious, I think a certain amount of > duck-tagging is appropriate.**** >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
