User:Nillerdk/Category scheme cycling infrastructure
This category scheme cycling infrastructure is my draft of one possible future category scheme.
For files related to cycling infrastructure, follwing is of interest:
- What objects are depicted? (a road/lane/path, some road markings, signs, other bicycles/vehicles, nature ...)
- Where? (in which landscape/city/county/country)
- (when applicable) Which cycle route?
These are my main thoughts:
- As I see it, any cycling infrastructure file should ideally be tagged in at least one subcategory of every of the above three groups.
- A bikeway is a special way, trail or lane for cycling (possibly also for pedestrians and riders), but not for cars. A bikeway may or may not be a section of a named, numbered or otherwise marked cycling route. Bikeways are objects (answer to the what? question).
- A cycling route is an idea of humans. It can be signed or marked on a map, it has a name or a number, it goes along different types of roads/trails, but it is not an object (it should be regarded as infrastructure nevertheless). It is an answer to the which route? question, not the what? question.
- Many cycle routes exist which to great extent go along normal roads without any bike infrastructure: A cycle route is not a special form of a bikeway, and the categories Category:Cycling routes, Category:Cycling routes by country etc. should not be a subcategories of Category:Bikeways. Individual files would however often fit in both a Bikeway and a Cycling route category. In a few cases - most predominantly of rail trails - a cycle route consist of one bikeway (the the rail trail) and the specific category of the trail (for example Category:Vía Verde de la Sierra) should be tagged as Rail trail (subcat of Bikeway) and Cycling route.
- Although tempting to tag "Category:Cycling route signs of the Elberadweg" (a what cat) in "Category:Elberadweg cycling route" (a which route cat), this is wrong: Tagging a file in the former would make it impossible (COM:OVERCAT) to tag the file in the latter and the file would have left the which route?-group.
- 1 Top category: Category:Cycling infrastructure
- 2 Proposed scope for Category:Bikeways
- 3 Proposed scope for Category:Cycling routes
- 4 Comments
- 5 Comments bis
- 6 Comments
- 6.1 Missing connections
- 6.2 Remove of "Bikeways signs" category
- 6.3 Enlist "Cycling routes" directly into "Cycling infrastructure"
- 6.4 Create of Category:Cycling signs by type category
- 6.5 Create of Category:Cycling signs by country
- 6.6 Create of Category:Bikeways by type
- 6.7 Proposed scope of C:Bikeway, broader and narrower meaning of "Bikeway", bikeway - cyclepath difference etc.
- 6.8 A place of "Cycle lanes" category
- 6.9 Other proposals?
- 6.10 Unsolved categories
- 7 Stop your chaotic changes!
- 8 Answer to ŠJů
- 9 How to get on?
Top category: Category:Cycling infrastructure
(notice: the subcategories are of course not complete here)
- Category:Bikeways: (what? category)
- Category:Cycling routes: (which route? category)
- Category:Cycling signs: (what? category)
Category:Bikeways signs(unneccesary because "bikeway signs" almost identical to "cycling signs")
- Category:Cycling signs by type:
- Category:Cycling signs by country:
- Category:Cycling route signs:
- Category:Bicycle racks (what? category)
Proposed scope for Category:Bikeways
For media depicting bikeways in the meaning of roads, tracks, paths or marked lanes designated for use by cyclists from which motorised traffic is generally exluded (definition from Wikipedia-article: ).
If a depicted bikeway in this category (or one of its subcategories) is part of a named, numbered or otherwise signed cycling route, please put that file in an appropiate subcategory of Category:Cycling routes as well.
Notice the existance of the related Category:Cycling routes. The relationship between cycling routes and bikeways can be expressed as follows: Bikeways as defined above may or may not be part of a cycling route. On the other hand, cycling routes can also go along roads which aren't bikeways in this sense.
Proposed scope for Category:Cycling routes
For media depicting something which is related to a cycling route media according to this definition: Cycle routes are named or numbered or otherwise signed routes, which may go along roads or dedicated cycle paths. (source: source OSM. Here cycle paths = bikeways).
Notice the existance of the related Category:Bikeways. The relationship between cycling routes and bikeways can be described as follows: Bikeways are dedicated ways for cyclists which may or may not be part of a cycling route. On the other hand, cycling routes can also go along roads not especially intended for cycling.
Support Generally endorse. See nothing I object to, really, and I agree that routes and bikeways are essentially separate concepts. They can overlap, but don't always do so. Ingolfson (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Only commont is that there should be a clear definition of the differences and same terms should be used. If "cycle paths" and "bikeways" are the same then it should be mentioned in the definition. --MGA73 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, what do you mean? I tried to make it clear that "cycle paths" and "bikeways" not are the same thing. I'll soon add proposals (on this page) for the category scope definitions, ie. the text to be written in the top of the categories. You can state your opinion again by then.
- Also, please have a look at the counterarguments by User:ŠJů here: . He's arguing to use a more networked category scheme than my hierarchic proposal here. Maybe he has a good idea, but I think it isn't compatible with the general agreement on Commons to use hierachical categories (categories here are not just tags, there is a hierarchy). Unfortunatly, I don't understand his disagreement well, so I'm having difficulties approching his standpoint. Maybe one of your have a better overview? Nillerdk (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I wrote "cycle path" and "bikeway" and not "cycle route" :-) I found the text "cycle path" on the first line here : Category:Cycling_routes. In my view the most important thing is that there is a good description to the categories. The most used name should be used. It is not always possible to have a name that people from all contries would find natural. --MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Because the top level definitions changed, the comments above are not necessarily valid anymore. Please don't modify the proposal which is discussed. If need be, comment them or make a copy. --Foroa (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I already commented this scheme closely, but because my comments are negelected and desinterpreted, it is necessary to repeat them.
Let's not to confuse the dispute about one single and petty controversy (enlistment of one category) and the proposal for some complex reconstruction of category structure. I am suscipious that majority of this monumental proposal occupies by problems which no exist. There no exist some essential problem regarding definition of category scopes. The whole dispute was started in that Nillerdk couldn't understand, that this file should be categorized into "route signs in Germany" and such enlistment absolutely not restrains from enlistment into Category:Elberadweg. Through his misunderstanding of category principles he has displaced from "cycling route signs" categories number of photos, which depict just such signs. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Cycling_route_signs&oldid=19439903 His proposal for creating of subcategory Category:Elberadweg signs is next proof of lack of his understanding of category principles: affected category had at that time only two images. Does make sens to create such a subcategory for one of two photos? If somebody made in categorization structure chaos, it was Nillerdk himself.
The above-stated scheme describes about the current status of category structure. Some current bindings are omissed in the scheme (I hope, that it not means a proposal for removal all such connections), some diminutive changes are in the scheme engaged in addition. Through transparency, it is suitable to dispute every proposed specific change separately.
I will no comment thinking about general principles of categorization as the cohesion and parallelism of local and thematic critera. I hope, we can know them already. He who is getting to know it only, should look round similar themes for now.
Concerning "be tagged in at least one subcategory of every of the above three groups", I remind, that absolute majority of ordinary cycle routes don't need and never will have its own category. It suffices to categorize photos of such routes by country, eventually by region. Only some few of very important and unusual routes can have a special category, and it is in such a case sufficient to enlist by country or region the whole category of route generally, not individual photos. Of course, if the photo sontains some specific object (sign, facility, persons etc.), it is to be categorized together by such object. It is intelligible, I hope. --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The connections between themes have to be expressed in category structure at every level. It is unacceptable to miss out the direct connection between "Cycling route signs in Germany" and "Bikeways in Germany" or "Bikeway signs in Germany" and "Bikeways in Germany". Such category scheme can help to discover of an extracted line of connections, but we have to bear in mind, that number of connections aren't expressed in such scheme. If there exists an advanced category structure, it would be more usefull and transparent to dispute separate proposed changes.
I will not repeat the phrase "networking categorization structure", because it was misunderstood by Nillerdk probably. But I hope that it stands to reson, that category structure have to form not only simple tree, but have to exist interconnections among particular branches at every level of categorization. It's no some my invention, but one of the essential and established principles of categorization here. --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Remove of "Bikeways signs" category
It appears to be devious the proposal for remove of "Bikeways signs" category. "Bikeway signs" is evidently utterly different meaning than "Cycling signs". There exist many signs related to cycling than bikeway signs. Surprisingly, you recognize "end of bikeway signs" as a sign type, but you don't recognize "start of bikeway" like this. I suppose, this is some mistake. --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Enlist "Cycling routes" directly into "Cycling infrastructure"
Cycling route isn't a part or a form of cycling infrastructure. Such enlistment is yet more problematic than into "Bikeways". The route is an abstract trajectory only – the infrastructural aspect of cycling route is just the real trail or road, so as a bikeway in broader or in narrower meaning. (only a route sign is a part of infrastructure, but a route itself isn't).
In the case of every cycle route was properly considered suitability of all touched roads, ways and trails. Often (as a rule) was done various constructional and traffic adjustments, even if the way isn't a cycle path in strictu sense. It can to be marked as cycle route some dangerous or cyclist-unsuitable way, in civilized country. That's why every cycle route may be perceived as bikeway in broader sense.
For compare: the photos of roads ar utterly naturally categorized by route number. We understand, that the relationship between road and road route is quit similar as the relationship between cycle way and cycle route. The photos of hiking trails can be categorized by hiking routes, such way is natural and practical. Why not in case of cycling? The category "cycling routes" make sense like "bikeways by route" category here. It makes it possible to search photos of bikeways by routes (or by regional route net). This possibility restrains not some other ways of searching.
A specific photo should be categorized by all adequate criteria. If some sign is depicted, the photo should by categorized by the type and meaning of such sign. If the depicted trail is a part of some bikeway (cycle path), which have its own category, it should by categorized into them. If is depicted part of some cycling route, which have its own category, in should be categorized into them. There is no occasion to different proceeding.
The abstract aspects of cycling routes may be expressed by some additional new category, as soon as it will prove to needed. For the present suffices the category "Routes". --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Create of Category:Cycling signs by type category
Create of Category:Cycling signs by country
Create of Category:Bikeways by type
This category is problematic, because there exists only one type of bikeway in strictu sense – the other subcategories are themes which are variously related to bikeways, but not types of bikeways.
For example, the cycle lane isn't a type of bikeway in strictu sense. Also cycle crossings and cycle routes are not types of bikeway, but themes related to bikeways. Rail trails are not a special type of bikeways - rail trails are specific only by origin, but they are identical type of bikeway as the other bikeways. Former railway determines the route of bikeway only.
In broader sense, we can distinction several types of marking of bikeways:
- cycle lane as part of roadway
- shared cycle lane
- absolutly segregated cycle path
- segregated cycle path like sidewalk
- cycle path shared by pedestrians (or horse riders etc.) (variants: separate way / sidewalk)
- shared cycle path with separated cycle lane and pedestrian lane (variants: separate way / sidewalk)
- trail or road reserved for cyclist (and pedestrians) through prohibition of motorcars
- labeled pedestrian or residential zone with permited cycling
- other trail or roads which are anyway recommended for cyclists or frekvently used by cyclists
Of course we may categorized bikeways by type of surface, by color, by used types of markings etc. But there's no point in genareting tens or hundreds of halfempty categories. We needn't to solve it until comes some factual proposal. --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed scope of C:Bikeway, broader and narrower meaning of "Bikeway", bikeway - cyclepath difference etc.
We may put a question whether the category "Cycling infrastucture" may stand for the broader meaning of "bikeway" (i. e. every way, which is anyway proposed for cyclist or markedly used by cyclist). But there are many cycling facilities which haven't a charakter of a way. That's why the cycling routes, crossings, paths etc. should have their commons specific category. More detailed structuring have to be proposed on the basis of practically content of photos. Let's consider what photos may be taken and what interests can have users of Commons. Let's understand, that possible photos of cycle route may picture either a route sign or a cycle path or special facility at cycle route. If there is nothing of the sort at the photo, there is no occasion to enlistment such photo into whatever cycling-related category. The cycle route can by depicted only as the specially equipped cycling way. The purpose of categorization is practical and useful ordering of photo-collection, not some defining of abstract concepts. --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As regards the narrower meaning of "cycle path" or "cycle way", such meaning is specified by specific types of marking. The round blue sign of cycle path, horizontal marking by white lines, color stripes or bicycle pictogram etc. Such types of marking can have their special subcategories for every specific type of sign or marking. --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
A place of "Cycle lanes" category
It is very problematic to perceive "cycle lane" as a type of a bikeway in strictu sense. (In broader sense, cycle lane is a sort of bikeway likewise as every trail or road used by cyclists frequently.
For example, there exist in many countries special term and special sign for "bikeway", which aren't interchangeable with other segregated cycle facilities. For example, in the Czech Republic are the "cycle trail" (Stezka pro cyklisty") and "cycle lane" (Vyhrazený jízdní pruh pro cyklisty) two entirely different terms. The "cycle lane" is as term of rules a part of carriage way and the traffic at it is regulated alike at bus lanes. The "cycle trail" isn't a part of carriage way, but it can be a part of walkway. The "cyclist crossing" isn't a part of "cycle trail" and isn't a part of "cycle lane". The cycle lane may be passed through a road junctiion, the cycle trail cann't be. --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see, why you want treat categories like "Cyclist crossing" or "Bikeway bridges". I think, they belong to theme "bikeways" in broader meaning. But they may be and may not be a part of bikeways in strictu sense. For example, in the Czech Republic is cyclist crossing never concepted as a part of bikeway, but nearly always ties together sections of bikeways (or it is part of cycle route at lest). --ŠJů (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop your chaotic changes!
I'm horrified from tens of nonsensical and counterproductive changes which you made! Please, stop promptly whatever other infringement into the category structure until you understand at least basics of categorization!
You really don't understand, that Category:Cycling routes in Denmark has to be enlistment sub "Denmark" and "Cycling in Denmark" someway? You really don't understand, that cycling route sign from Denmark have to be categorized sub "cycling route signs" and sub "signs in Denmark" someway? You don't understand, that is nonsense to create a new category Category:Cycling routes in the United Kingdom, though there exists an established category Category:National Cycle Network? It don't crosset your mind, that such a category have to fall sub some "United Kingdom" categories and sub cycling in the United Kingdom?
- As far as I can see from Special:Contributions/Nillerdk he has made no changes since you two started to debate this subject - you on the other hand has made several Special:Contributions/ŠJů. So I see no reason for this comment. No point telling it over and over. --MGA73 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Answer to ŠJů
It is quite hard to understand what category scheme you suggest from your 12k post. I insist that we need to define a category scheme. I don't care if we start off with my draft or you create a new one based on your ideas. I suggest you copy my layout and make your suggested changes or that you invent a way more clever than mine to demonstrate your proposed scheme. Then we make the neccesary adjustments.
Before you do that, I'll address one flaw (in my opinion) in your scheme. I picked a random file which you have categorized today (File:Innertkirchen_GrimselNord.jpg). Currently, the file is in the 4 following categories
- Category:Road signs in Switzerland
- Category:Cyclists warning signs
- Category:Bikeways in Switzerland
- Category:Cycling route signs in Switzerland (which is currently descendent of Category:Bikeways in Switzerland and Category:Road signs in Switzerland)
The file is per COM:OVERCAT not allowed to be in Category:Bikeways in Switzerland, because the file is already in a category which has Category:Bikeways in Switzerland as parent. Do you understand what I mean?
According to my proposal, the file could be categorized like this:
- Category:Road signs in Switzerland
- Category:Cyclists warning signs
Category:Bikeways in Switzerland(this is clearly not a bikeway)
- Category:Cycling route signs in Switzerland (child of Cycling route signs)
- Category:Swiss cycling route number 8 (grand child of Cycling routes)
Notice that with my system, it is possible to find everything related to cycling route 8 in one category (the route category), while with your system, this photo would not even be correctly contained in either a bikeway or a route category, but only in a sign category (see comment about OVERCAT above). I think the above example shows why we need have separate categories for the not-thingish routes parallel to all the thingish stuff like ways, signs etc. Nillerdk (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- We cann't design some all-new category structure, out of context. There exists some category structure and we can dispute various it's improvements or changes. It is more lucid than some scheme whereof all kind of changes are mixed and the current status quo is indistinctly reflected. Please, let's dispute particular proposals, not some mixture of misty ideas. Let's try to separate different questions so much as possible and deal with every of them solo. I tried to answer all your proposals. However you answered neither of my comments now, istead of this you added a next mention about a next petite problem.
- File:Innertkirchen_GrimselNord.jpg portrays some road and a column with two road signs. The upper sign is simply a cycling route sign: it is categorized as Cycling route signs in Switzerland. The under sign indeed belong to cycling route (it may be Cycling route signs in Switzerland), but it isn't only an indication of route number. It gives some additional meaning for cyclist. That's why this second sign is categorized by more accurately meaning (Cyclists warning signs) and by location (Road signs in Switzerland, until there exists some more special category for such signs). However the category Innertkirchen was missing, what is a frequent ommision in cases of such photos. You're right that Bikeways in Switzerland isn't necessary in this case. But the way (road) is clearly other object than the signs – that's why it can be independently categorized. Generally, it's utterly standard practice that if photo pictured more objects, it is categorized by every of such objects.
- We repeated many times in our dispute and you can take note of the current system, that "bikeways" categories are used and intended for all bikeways in the broader meaning, not only for such bikeways which are signed by "cycle path" sign or by color cycle lane. If you don't it understand, you will not it understand and whatever other discussion is unavailing. I have seen, that attempt to found "cycle routes" categories aside from "bikeways" categories conduced to unlucidity and disconnectedness mainly. That way acquits ill IMHO.
- Of course, as soon as will exist more photos of route number 8, subsequently will be needed to create a more special category Swiss cycling route number 8. But there's no point in creating of one special category for every one or two photos. If you have found more photos of Swiss route 8, you can create this special category, but that doesn't mean that the present enlistment was wrong. By the way, a dispute about this one photo should take place at talk page of this photo and not to complicate this discussion, where there are enough questions, which aren't answered still. --ŠJů (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I used this photo as an example of the general problem (sorry if I didn't make that clear). Of course it is allowed to suggest a category scheme when no scheme exists. Even if you don't like my suggestion, please respect my opinion as I respect yours. Please participate in the discussion as per Foroa's suggestion and answer my question shortly there. In the end, the community has to decide. Nillerdk (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
How to get on?
It seems to me that you have a hard time to agree. You both mention an edit made by the other. It can be helpful to discuss an edit if the propose is to find out what is the best way to categorize that particular file. If the purpose is to point fingers it is a bad idea.
In my view it is okay to make categories even if there is only one or two files in it if it is likely that more files will follow or if the category they would otherwise come in is very large making it hard to find the file again.
I believe that a file showing more “objects” can/should be categorized by all objects - unless of course they are only a small part (so File:Innertkirchen GrimselNord.jpg should not be in Category:Leaves even if there are leaves in the image).
Files should of course not be in over-categories.
Cycle routes and bikeways is not always the same but can be.
I believe that all agree to all of that.
In my view it is possible to changes categories in both ways: 1) making improvements or changes or 2) re design from scratch.
Since there has been made a new start in Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Current_requests/2009/03/Category:Cycling_infrastructure I believe that this should be discussed there first. If it is agreed that no “revolution” should made then improvements or changes is a good way forward. --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)