|
For my city in the UK the council provides a set of recommended roads for cycling. These roads are not a linear route but a network of quieter roads. There is no numbering or physical signage so these are not quiet_streets or living_streets. Would it be appropriate to mark these as lcn (or within a lcn relation) despite not having a named reference or a linear route? Or is there some other tagging for this non-physical recommendation? |
|
This is a contentious issue. Personally, I lean towards the old-fashioned "if it isn't visible on the ground then don't map it". (Rather, make sure that the busy roads are mapped appropriately, so that a good cycling router like http://cycle.travel/ would automatically avoid them, without having to rely on the council telling you where cycling is nicer.) But you could (and some people do) take the view that if the council posts this list somewhere, it is at least indirectly verifiable - you can't see it on the ground, but you can see it on the council web site. |
There is a tag I've noticed and used in my area of Chiang Mai, Thailand that sounds like it might fit your needs, class:bicycle=* where the values range from -3 to +3 depending on how desirable or enjoyable a highway would be for bicycling. There is a proposal describing its use here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:class:bicycle
It's admittedly a very subjective tag but if an organization was trying to create useful, safe and scenic bicycle routes, this data could come in very handy.
The issue of verifiability is important but when one cuts to the chase, much of the data found in our user-friendly database is quite subjective. There are about 35K uses of that tag in various forms extant currently so it isn't going to disappear any time soon. And every one of those tags is totally subjective. (see Taginfo https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=class%3Abicycle)