Hi brainwad,

I had a look at unsigned_ref when mapping these routes, but for some reason (I don't remember any more) I decided against using it. But you're right, that probably would be the better way.

I don't think they should be mapped as state=proposed. Officially, they are "bestehend", which doesn't mean they have to be signposted. Please have a look at the Velonetz Alltag Dataset: https://geo.zh.ch/data/maps/67a38125-c862-4406-abab-cdb5eb7f0d44 Sometimes they are signposted, but without a number, just the destination. But, as you correctly pointed out, not everywhere.

Maybe some background about why I wanted to map these routes:
I saw some ways in my region were (seemingly) randomly tagged with lcn=yes. On CyclOSM these are prominently highlighted, and they can indicate to the user that this route is (somewhat) bicycle friendly. I thought this was useful information and wanted to look if Zurich has something similar to the ARRN in Aargau. That's when I found this "Velonetz Alltag" dataset. As this could be really useful information for people who want to start cycling (but don't know which route should be preferred), I decided to map these.

But I have to agree: They're not verifiable on the ground (yet), I hope this will change in the future. But the Geodatenbank of the Canton of Zurich is one of our approved sources.

Let me know your thoughts :D