[talk-ch] Bicycle route tagging

Matthias Julius lists at julius-net.net
Thu Jun 30 00:46:57 CEST 2011

Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de> writes:

> Hi,
>> The other day I noticed the way cycle routes are tagged in
>> Switzerland.  There, the usage of the name tag differs from the general
>> usage of name tags within OSM.  IMHO, we should not deviate from
>> established tagging practices without a really good reason.
> I assume that you have read this thread:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2009-May/000356.html


>> Therefore, I took the liberty to modify
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/EN:Switzerland/CycleNetwork#Recommended_tagging_with_relations
>> and to change the name tag to be in line with the way it is used
>> elsewhere in OSM and also
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations
>> I also noticed that some relations have quite elaborate and long
>> names. To reduce these to be just the names I have added the description
>> and description:xx tags.  There, the start and end points and possibly
>> other information for the data user can be noted.
> I don't agree with that. Those "elaborate and long names" are there for
> a reason. In that particular case to distinguish parts of a route from
> the entire route. You should not just put "Aare Route" on a relation
> that only contains the part from Spiez to Meiringen because it is confusing
> for both mapper and map users. In fact, the notion 
> name=<route name> (<from>-<to>)
> for a stage of the route is quite well established in OSM.

Well, having multiple objects with the same that belong together is
quite well established also.  Nobody gets confused by having a street
made up from a number of segments sharing the same name.  In the thread
cited above is no mention of including "(<from>-<to>)" in the name and
the wiki page does not (and did not) document that neither.

Anyway, you certainly have a point and I don't want to swim against the
flow here.  If this is common practice in other places, too, I can live
with it.

And, if this is the consensus here it should be documented on

> I have no strong feelings about removing the ncn/rcn part.

Those just don't belong in the name and they are quite ugly.  Who in
Switzerland and outside the OSM community knows what those mean?

>> I know there are arguments for the tagging the way it is now.  The name
>> tag gets displayed in JOSM and it is not rendered on any map anyway.
>> But, we don't want to tag for editors and the map renderings might
>> change and who knows who is rendering maps with and what styles anyway.
>> I propose to change the tagging according to the current version of the
>> wiki page.  Unless there are strong objections I will start with that in
>> a week or so.
> I have to agree with Simon. I don't see any reason to do a hasty retagging
> of all cycling routes unless there is a strong agreement among active Swiss 
> mappers to do so. At least find out who is looking after cycling routes
> at the moment and contact them so that you don't start an edit war.

Yes, "Don't be hasty!"

I am in no rush.  And I have posted here to get other opinions.

If someone is reverting my edits that is not yet an edit war. ;-)


More information about the talk-ch mailing list