Category talk:Cycling route signs

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Suggest discontinuation of using this category and its subcategories

[edit]

Many photos here would fit better in Category:Cycling routes and its subcategories. When it becomes neccesary to categorize signs separately, it would be better to introduce Category:Elberadweg signs to complement Category:Elberadweg which is a subsubcategory of Category:Cycling routes etc. -- Nillerdk (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This category "Cycling route signs" is one of the subcategories of Category:Cycling routes, naturally. Every image should be categorized by the portrayed object (e. g. a sign) and by location (e. g. any some particular way). If it were many images of signs related to one specific cycling route, we would create the category for such signs specifically (and such category would be included into both route signs category and the specific route category). But many of images of cycling way do contain no route sign, and many images of sign cointains no the way by itself. It were imprudent to displace cycling route signs from "signs" category branch, and also it were imprudent to include in this branch all images of cycling routes including those that don't portray any route sign. --ŠJů (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for feedback on this! You say many images of sign cointains no the way by itself which is of course true - but does this leave the sign unrelated to the cycling route? (no). I understand your logic about categorizing according to location and object, but I don't see the point in this case. If I want a photo of a route sign of the Elberadweg, I go to the Elberadweg category and look there and expect to find everything relevant there. The signs of the Elberadweg must be in the Elberadweg category or a subcategory, because the signs has a natural of-relationship to the cycling route. That certain photo could also be in a parallel cycling route signs system (the system of which you speak), but I can't think of a case where it would help finding a certain photo - please enlighten me here with an exemplified situation! And can you tell me, do you agree that also sign-only photos should be in the relevant cycling route category or subcategory (as well)? Nillerdk (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is no the dilema "either – or". Nearly every photo (including photo of route sign) should be categorized by the route (e. g. Elberadweg) - but for example any pattern diagram of route sign or a detailed photo of route sign without a number or a route sign of an unremarkable route can stay categorized only in one of this two ways. And every photo of route sign should be categorized into categories of signs. If somebody search images of route signs, he shouldn't be obliged to rummage about tens of landscape photos of route whithout sign. If somebody take interest in directional marking, he will comb through the category of road signs and hiking signs and through the subcategories of them (Category:Cycling route signs) and he will not concern himself in hundreds images of landscapes, serpentines, structural design of the trail, cyclists or benches near the trail.
The essential logic of categorization is, that photo of route sign should by categorized 1) in between photos of route signs in the concerned country, and 2) (independently of it) in between photos pertaining to the selfsame route or to cycling-routes-net in some region.
As regards any especially important route like the Elberadweg, your proposal is one of possibilities. The category of such way can have (as soon as need arises) various particular subcategories such as:
  • Route signs of Elberadweg
  • Maps of Elberadweg
  • Rest stops and buffets at Elberadweg
  • Landscapes around Elberadweg
  • Building-up of Elberadweg
  • Elberadweg in Sachsen
and the like
Similarly, we have generally categories of Hiking and footpath signs by country, but Category:Way of Saint James has a special position among the ordinary marked ways.
Of course, the detailed photo should be placed only into one of subcategories, while the photo, which displays several objects, can be placed into several categories.

--ŠJů (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After my slight change of opinion, I agree with everything here except the meaning of Category:Greenways Praha - Wien. Is this a named, numbered or otherwise marked bicycle route from Praha to Wien? The category should then be called Category:Greenway Praha - Wien (without s) or its more proper name/number in Czech or German. The s was confusing me. Nillerdk (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the name, which is in some maps assigned beside the number as the name of the cycling route number 11. But we should discuss here the principles of categorization, not rightness of a name of some specific way. In case of Czech cycle routes, it is generally unlikely to found categories for individual routes, because the routes forms an integral net and majority of routes haven't its own special identity. If some route have one, then rather as "bikeway" than as "cycle route", though those two viewpoints aren't separable. The marking of cycle routes is connected with construction work and the construction of bikeways is connected with marking of routes. If one way is named and popular, its name belongs to both aspects: to the route and to the trail. It's forced to divide those aspects. Only the discrimination of signs can be unambiguous and purposeful generally. The way and the route are more essentially linked mutually. --ŠJů (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Cycling_route_signs&oldid=89679156"