Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Cycling infrastructure
I have already posted on the Village Pump (sorry for not posting here in the first case - was unaware). I'm proposing this category scheme for Category:Cycling infrastructure. I would like your comments. The goal is to minimise the chaos within this category tree. I am in disagreement with User:ŠJů whether to use a "networked" or a "hierarchical" structure (he's in favor of the former). Please note his arguments here (starting with: I never ...): . Thank you Nillerdk (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relevant discussions are Category talk:Cycling routes, Category talk:Cycling infrastructure and primarily Category talk:Bikeways. I think, this depiction of passed disputes isn't just exhaustive and correct. The diminutive question, whether is to be in the category "bikeways" one element in addition or isn't to be, means no "chaos". Separate and individual improvement proposals can be stated, but the category structure is functional in principle and there's no need to create some complex reconstruction. It is necessary to sort many insufficiently or bad categorized photos, not make some revolutions regarding category structure. --ŠJů (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Part 2
Foroa has suggest to start the discussion over, starting with the main points. Let's do that and let's keep the discussion shortest possible. The first crucial problem is whether there is a adult-child relationship between cycling routes and bikeways and if there is, which one. This question is identical to: Can a category cycling routes be descendant of bikeways (a), bikeways of cycling routes (b) or none (c)? Before restating my personal point, I would like to ask (especially ŠJů) if you agree in clearing this question (reaching consensus) before going any further. If you agree, you are - as far as I'm concerned - welcome to state your point with a short argument. Nillerdk (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- First off all we should reflect that in current categorization are "bikeways in..." categories used and established as umbrella categories for all types of ways which are anyhow recommended or signed for cyclists, no matter whether segregated or partly seperated or full shared. This system is functional, practical, intelligible and unified. We have acknowledge that the word "bikeways" in names of such categories mean neither "way signed by cycle path sign" nor "way marked by color lane" nor "separated way for cyclists" (though this narrower meaning of this word exists certainly too), but the word "bikeways" in names of categories means all types of ways which are anyhow recommended or signed for cyclists.
- Let's see that categories "Bikeways in..." can have subcategories by separate regions or cities, by type of equipment (types of signs), by particular ways or routes (and maybe in addition by type of way - shared road, trail, cycle path, collored cycle path, shared cycle-pedestrians path, cycle lane, shared cycle+bus lane etc. That's a good idea.). If some route or way haven't its own category yet, photos of it are placed directly in "bikeways" category for the time being. If we understand this system, so we have to acknowledge, that photos of cycle routes and categories of photos by cycle routes belongs into "Bikeways in..." category.
- I have seen, that attempt to found "cycle routes" categories aside from "bikeways" categories conduced to unlucidity, disconnectedness and duplicity mainly. That way acquits ill IMHO this once. Even if would categories "Cycling routes in..." filled up purposefully, such category will perform as "bikeways by route" category factually. That's why they have to be subcategories of "Bikeways in...". I propose to keep the current system in principle and eventually to found "Cycle paths in..." categories for "bikeways" in narrower meaning. --ŠJů (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- As regards the original question: one specific cycle path or bikeway can be a part of some one or more marked cycle route or can be not marked as part of some route. Some specific cycle route can involve (use) one or more cycle paths, but all used roads and trails and paths are "bikeways" in broader meaning. But category "Cycle routes in SOMEWHERE" can involve ONLY photos or maps or equipment of bikeways (in broader sense) and that is why those have to be a subcategory of "Bikeways in SOMEWHERE". The category "Bikeways in SOMEWHERE" can involve among others photos of cycle ways which aren't signed as named or numbered cycle routes, that is why such category should not be a subcategory of "Cycle routes in SOMEWHERE". If we had this couple of categories without direct relation, it will generate chaos and duplicity, two uncommitted categories with similar content, as we have seen in some few of cases. --ŠJů (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Final points from my side
ŠJů, I understand perfectly what system you favour, and you understand perfectly what system I favour. We disagree, but I respect your opinion. I don't respect, however, that you keep recategorizing according to your personal plan (more than 500 cycling-related edits just during the last 4 days) while the topic is under discussion. At the same time you have blamed me for making "chaotic changes" ... (At this point I have to admit that I made a few strange edits before the discussion started, as I became aware that the categorization of cycling infrastructure, as it is now, is far from ideal).
The answer to my own question above: None. Everyone agrees that cycling routes and bikeways (in the narrow sense in ŠJů's terminology) are different concepts:
- There are bikeways which don't belong to a cycling route (The small municipality Copenhagen has 350 km segregated bikeways of which currently only 10% are named, numbered or otherwise signed cycling routes)
- There are cycling routes which don't follow bikeways (Denmark has more than 3000 km of signed and named national cycling routes, mostly following calm countryside roads without bikeways)
- There are certainly also cycling routes which follow bikeways (for example the mentioned 10% in Copenhagen or large sections of riverside cycling routes in Germany)
ŠJů's idea to broaden the bikeway concept to also include ordinary (car) roads which are used as part of cycling routes seems simplifying (positive) at the first glance. Unfortunatly, it has the following serious disadvantage(s) for the users:
Example: Suppose a user A needs some photos from the Rhine Cycling Route. If there was a category Category:Rhine Cycling Route, he would go there. He would find photos of segregated bikeways, roads which the cycling route follows, photos taken from along the cycling route but not showing bikeways/roads/signs (views), signs and maybe some infrastructure closely related to the cycling route like bicycle ferries, bicycle racks etc. Voìla.
Suppose another user B needs some photos of bikeways in Koblenz. If we choose to define bikeway in the "narrow" sense (road with special cycling infrastructure), he would go to Category:Bikeways in Koblenz (or if it doesn't exist yet to Category:Bikeways in Rheinland-Pfalz) and he will find photos of segregated bicycle facilities, but no ordinary roads marked as cycling routes. Some of the files, he finds, will probably also be found be user A in Category:Rhine Cycling Route, because Koblenz is at the Rhine. User B could also have another wish: To find photos of different implementations of bicycle lanes. He will go to Category:Bikeways by type and then Category:Cycle lanes and he will find what he needs.
Notice that user A and B have two completely different goals: While A wants files associated with an abstract route (through many area-locations), B wants files of certain physical objects (in certain area-locations).
- Let's keep the ordinary (in ŠJů's terminology: narrow) definition of bikeway (see the definition I endorse)
- Let's accept that objects (bikeways, signs etc) and routes should be categorized seperatly. Infrastructure has two parts: the physical (Category:Bikeways, Category:Cycling signs etc. ) and the organizational (Category:Cycling routes) and the one common overcategory should be: Category:Cycling infrastructure)
- Every cycling route is important enough to have it own category if there are just a few files to populate it
- "Sign" categories should not be subcategories of bikeway categories (example: Category:Bikeway signs in Germany should not be in Bikeways in Germany and Category:Cycling route signs of Elberadweg should not be in Category:Elberadweg). If this was the case, files depicting bikeways and signs would (due to COM:OVERCAT) "disappear" down in the "signs" categories.
- My recommendation of a category scheme take these points into account and can be found here. It is not complete (I didn't even try to make it cover every possible subcategory). When it mentions very specific categories like Category:Vía Verde de la Sierra it is just an example. Oh, and the "cycling signs" subcategory might be improvable. I don't understand ŠJů's criticism of this subcategory, but I would be open to discuss an alternative, would it be given in a structured and comparable form.
Lastly, I'll ask User:Foroa, User:Ingolfson, User:MGA73 and the rest of the community for their opinions. Neither I nor User:ŠJů have much more to add I think - we have already been repeating ourselves. Nillerdk (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I mentioned previously, first of all it is necessary to classify hundreds of photos, which are insufficiently categorized. Yes, recently I categorized many photos, which have been inserted directly in "Bikeway signs" category (I distributed them by meaning and by country) or in "Bikeways" category (I distributed them by country). It is needed to categorize many of them more precisely: by city or region or by specific way or route - many of them lack some location category etc. Categorization by type of way (shared road, trail, various types of urban or rural cycle paths, cycle lanes etc.) can by added surely as well - I made nothing what obstruct it (just I added more photos into the specific category of cycle path signs or into cycle lane category recently). Let's give our effort to such usefull and needed work instead to struggle irreconcilablely for/against implacement of one category into the second category. Discussions about some marginal specific proposals should not restrain our constructive laborious work meanwhile. As I was saying, I'm not against existence of special categories for various types of ways for cyclists, but I'm against pointless doubling of categories and I advice to base upon the current system, which is workable in principle and can be developed furthermore without some (controversial) rebuilding. --ŠJů (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- The reason why we cannot to come to an agreement is, that You did bethink yourself that "bikeway" can mean only "segregated bikeway" and nothing else. Your question refered to "bikeways" and our self-answer to "segregated bikways". However the disputed categories are named "Bikeways" and not "Segregated bikeways" really. I never made some protest against existence of special categories for various types of segregated bikeways (as e. g. bicycle paths/roads or bicycle lanes). The fact, that presently in Denmark are urban bikeways mostly signed only as cycle paths and rural bikeways only as cycle routes shouldn't deny the need to have some common category for all types of bikeways (independently of type of signs and traffic segregation). By the way, "cycle path" is (by traffic and legislative aspects) more similar to some forest or rural trail than to cycle lane. How do you want to take it into account? --ŠJů (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nillerdk, Your examples indicate that you don't understand the principles of categorization yet. Categorization of a photo by some criterion does never restrain to categorization of the some one by other criterion. I respect this principle, You didn't respect it in some your edits.
- see the definition Your link don't prove that the word "bikeway" can mean the segregated facilities only; moreover we discussed already that most of cycle lanes and cycle pahts are shared (not strictly segregated) and more ordinary trails are really segregated although they are not signed as "cycle paths".
- "Every cycling route is important enough to have it own category" is absolute nonsense. Perhaps it is so in Denmark, but surelly not generally. For example, there exist or are planned about hundred of numbered cycle routes of first or second class in Prague and times out of number of third class, which are numbered only in documentation. Have we create own category for every cycling route, for every streetlamp, for every bus stop, for every vehicle, for every house? It's absurd.
- Cycling signs are equipment of ways for cyclists or of their crossings. That's why category of cycling signs should be a subcategory of bikeways category. If Category:Cycling route signs of Elberadweg exists, it should be in Category:Elberadweg surelly and it is impossible to doubt of it rationally. If some photo portrayals at once some sign and the trail, it is no ovecategorization, if it is categorized by both of such objects. --ŠJů (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- My final (for this round at least) comments:
- Support for the retention of "Cycling infrastructure" and "cycling infrastructure by country" scheme.
- Comment to retain BOTH cycle routes and bikeways, but define them better in a meta-description. Not all bikeways are routes, not all routes are bikeways. In my view, the two do not overlap in a way that allows us to conclusively merge, or place one of them under the other. Confusion will have to be avoided by clearer disambiguation, i.e. route = concept of a link, bikeway = physical facility. Not all routes then need categories, nor do all bikeways of course.
- Of course I had to add something after all - hunting through categories like "bikeways" while working on cycling infrastructure categories has found categories like bikeways in japan, which was not linked to anything except the bikeways by country cat. In fact, all the cycling-related cats in Japan were pretty orphaned. Now they aren't, partly because they are in the cycling infrastructure logic now. Ingolfson (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement on some aspects of this proposal. Other categories suggested by the proposal don't seem to have been created or used since. It might be worth to formulate a proposal for the one or two open issues and resolve these and then present an updated proposal. -- User:Docu at 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)