Category talk:Cycling infrastructure
Propose category structure scheme
During the last week, I've had some friendly discussions with User:ŠJů about categorization of cycling infrastructure media and we have reached agreement on some points and on others not. The categorization is quite caotic at the moment, so I have made a draft of a category structure scheme (User:Nillerdk/Category scheme cycling infrastructure), which can serve as a starting point for discussions. I think my main disagreement with ŠJů is the relation between bikeway and cycling route, as he insists (, ) that cycling routes are bikeways. See my comments in the scheme draft. So
- can we please have some additional opinions on this?
- what (else) needs to be changed in my draft to make it "official"?
Oh, I forgot to ask for review of the scope descriptions for the relevant categories! For example at Category:Bikeways where we have some slight controversy right now (according to the cycling route <-> bikeway relation problem). Nillerdk (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I must protest very strongly. I have repeated several times, that I NEVER insisted, that "cycling routes are bikeways". That is desinterpretation. See Category talk:Bikeways.
But I assert, that
- cycling route is often marked along one or more bikeways and every part of every cycling route is bikeway in a broad sense (a way which is advised to cyclists someways). This is a reason why it makes sense to can find category of routes within category of bikeways. The category "cycling routes" make sense like "bikeways by route" category here.
- every purposefull bikeway is a part of one or more specific cycling route(s) (no matter whether marked or unmarked). --ŠJů (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)