OpenStreetMap

Hello, I couldn't find any clue of the route in the part between the Black Forest and the Rhine. Is it even waymarked at all? If not, OSM would be the wrong place for this route.

From the intel I have, the route has been publicly opened a few days ago. I used the official GPX track to map the relation using nearest highways and haven’t surveyed it. Even without waymarks – yet? – I think OpenStreetMap could show it as it is an official route, similar to a state border. Given it’s my personal opinion, I’ll forward the case to members from french community to receive their comments on that matter. Feel free to share it to the german community so that we can reach an agreement and improve mapping practices.

The German wiki is pretty clear on that topic: "A bicycle route is a chain of paths that is identified by a continuous marking as a bicycle route."
The English and French wiki also say in the first sentence: "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed routes."
So apparently being signposted is the main criteria for a bike route.

Well, this cycle route is indeed named. Would a tag from the "unsigned" categorie be appropriate in this case?

It shouldn't really be in OSM if it's not signposted. There are thousands of "my favourite cycle ride" routes out there in books, magazines, etc., often named.

At the very least it needs to be tagged as unsigned. Otherwise routers with turn-by-turn directions will say things like "Turn left onto Bio Velo Route", which is actively confusing if there aren't any signs. unsigned=yes on the relation is good for this.

But I agree with Karthoo, really it shouldn't be in OSM.

(Where the English-language wiki pages say "named or numbered or otherwise signed", that means "signed with a name, or with a number, or with something else" (e.g. a symbol). It's using "otherwise" as an adjective. It doesn't mean "a named route without signing is ok".)

besides: even for actually signposted routes it's problematic to just use some unknown GPX files. Even when ignoring the legal aspect, EuroVelo routes for example in some areas don't match what's actually signposted, only represent a proposed state without any infrastructure whatsoever or go along tracks that aren't even suitable to drive

Hello all.
If we all only include named, but not real on-site (!!) signposted cycle routes in OSM, we will become "Komoot 2.0" here. Do we want that? With the resulting data chaos, no one will be able to see through it...

Please leave such things out of OSM, use Komoot, umap and Co.

Thank you.

streckenkundler

PS: Translated with Deepl

(DE-Original-Version: Hallo zusammen.
Wenn wir alle nur benannte, aber nicht real vor Ort (!!) ausgeschilderte Radrouten in OSM aufnehmen, werden wir hier "Komoot 2.0". Wollen wir das? Bei dem dann entstehenden Datenchaos sieht dann erst recht keiner mehr durch...

Bitte sowas aus OSM herauslassen, Komoot, umap und Co. benutzen!

Danke.

streckenkundler)

I have now tagged this as unsigned=yes which means that I can at least filter it out from cycle.travel. But I agree with streckenkundler and Karthoo that it should be deleted entirely.

I do agree with all the point made and with the relation deletion. Would it be possible to wait about or week before I do it? The matter was sent to both OSMWeekly – to make it reach more people who may find it easier to explore still existing elements – and the euro deputy – in order to know if the route will be signposted.

Hi Lejun,
thanks for agreeing to remove it. There is not need to wait. You can remove it right now. Please do it.
Even after deletion we will always be able to look at it, export it or restore it from the OSM history.
Thanks,
redd

No need for thanks. It’s only natural for me to take care of my mess after seeing how the community is torn about it.