SJ
> I have been instrumental in helping to harmonize how OSM tags national/regional/local bike routes in the USA (it was not easy and it took years). The wiki above is the result, along with "USBRS" (search for it or click the link in the "See Also" section, it is a related wiki). If I can help you do the same, please use those two wikis as a starting point, and look at other countries and how they do it, also see our https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/cycle:network wiki.
>
> > Could you please give me some advice?
>
> If this does not help you or fully answer your questions, please ask more specific questions and I will do my best to answer you. Again, thank you for tracking me down and asking me, that's very OSM-polite!
>
> SteveA
>
> > Could you please give me some advice?
>
> If this does not help you or fully answer your questions, please ask more specific questions and I will do my best to answer you. Again, thank you for tracking me down and asking me, that's very OSM-polite!
>
> SteveA
> This comes close to what we call a quasi-national route, and we DO map these in OSM, we even give them a high-level tag of network=ncn, but ALL of our quasi-national routes in the USA — every single one of them — are SIGNED. THAT is what makes them not official by a government, but "official by somebody who takes the care and expense to put up signs." If your route has a website, that's a good start — it means there is a community of people who "feel" the route is "real." If your route were to put up signs, you could absolutely 100% map it, because OSM has the "on the ground verifiable" rule, and signs are verifiable. But you are at an in-between of "not quite there yet" because of no signs — the website is good, but it isn't quite enough. In the USA, because of the thousands of such bike rides on RideWithGPS website, we could have these migrate into OSM and we would have a mess. Your route, while it sounds important and like it has many people dedicated to it, still lacks what might be called "verifiability," except for a web site, which hasn't really been enough all over the OSM world to justify calling it a route in OSM.
>
> The only way that I could think of justifying putting this route in OSM that is similar to GDMBR is that so many people have ridden it, some are OSM Contributors and "own the GPX data from their GPS device," then you could say "I and hundreds or thousands of us consider this to be such an important bicycle route, that we assign it a route=bicycle relation." However, you would then have to decide if it is network= ncn, rcn or lcn and you open the door anybody (in your country, even in OSM worldwide) doing this (at the same network level) to any "similar" bicycle route. Think carefully about doing that, especially about "what important facts about any given bicycle route is required before it is important or relevant enough to enter into OSM at a given network level." What you are doing is effectively making the rules for the determination of THAT route true for ALL similar routes in your country / region. If you are prepared to "manage" that (must have many, many frequent riders, must have a website, should be signed but it's OK if it is not — this last rule is different than the rest of the world in OSM bicycle routing — then you might consider entering it as a route.
>
> Also, note that route=bicycle and route=mtb (mountain bike, unpaved route) are tagged differently with different rules. (See our wikis on both).
>
> Happy to answer questions and share my experience,
> SteveA
>
> The only way that I could think of justifying putting this route in OSM that is similar to GDMBR is that so many people have ridden it, some are OSM Contributors and "own the GPX data from their GPS device," then you could say "I and hundreds or thousands of us consider this to be such an important bicycle route, that we assign it a route=bicycle relation." However, you would then have to decide if it is network= ncn, rcn or lcn and you open the door anybody (in your country, even in OSM worldwide) doing this (at the same network level) to any "similar" bicycle route. Think carefully about doing that, especially about "what important facts about any given bicycle route is required before it is important or relevant enough to enter into OSM at a given network level." What you are doing is effectively making the rules for the determination of THAT route true for ALL similar routes in your country / region. If you are prepared to "manage" that (must have many, many frequent riders, must have a website, should be signed but it's OK if it is not — this last rule is different than the rest of the world in OSM bicycle routing — then you might consider entering it as a route.
>
> Also, note that route=bicycle and route=mtb (mountain bike, unpaved route) are tagged differently with different rules. (See our wikis on both).
>
> Happy to answer questions and share my experience,
> SteveA
