<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 15.11.2021 um 04:37 schrieb Brian
M. Sperlongano:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx2cpNTT1_AHh-3fGPc2ZUx1k8da97GofX9DG1nnFfMSRg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Thanks for a thoughtful response. You've used the term
"layer" several times, but I'm not sure what that means --
perhaps some hierarchy of cycle routes that exists in
Germany?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Rather, the different types of signage and the associated
messages:</p>
* basic_network = destination signposting = message: Here cycling
is officially recommended regardless of the purpose (everyday
traffic or tourist traffic)<br>
<br>
* Special routes = symbols = message: officially recommended for
certain applications, e.g. B. for tourist bike tours or to follow
certain topics like "Martin Luther Cycle route"
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx2cpNTT1_AHh-3fGPc2ZUx1k8da97GofX9DG1nnFfMSRg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>My current understanding from this discussion, and the
proposal writeup -- and please correct me if I am not
articulating this correctly -- is that there are three
kinds of cycle routes in Germany:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. Routes which are "named" (or possibly numbered /
signed / blazed)</div>
<div>2. Routes which are not named but are signposted as a
bicycle route, which are being referred to as a "basic
network"</div>
<div>3. Routes which are neither named nor signposted.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>To 1) and 2): yes, these are characteristics of these routes.
But maybe the type of signage and the message are the main
distinguishing features, see above.</p>
<p>2) can also have a symbol, but one that is the same for all
routes, e.g. a red bicycle.</p>
<p>I can't imagine 3), we only want to tag what we find outside.
There they would not be recognizable outside.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx2cpNTT1_AHh-3fGPc2ZUx1k8da97GofX9DG1nnFfMSRg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>However, the original announcement states that the
purpose of the proposal is "to distinguish nameless
connections in the cycle / hiking trail network from named
routes and numbered node network connections"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So I am confused as to whether "basic network" refers
to some distinguishing characteristic or designation of
unnamed bicycle routes, or whether it is a general or
perhaps legal term that is being applied to ANY bicycle
route which lacks a name.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Thank you for pointing this out, I will rephrase that so that
it relates more to the signposting and the layers in the cycle /
hiking network.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx2cpNTT1_AHh-3fGPc2ZUx1k8da97GofX9DG1nnFfMSRg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">We urgently need
uniform tagging with which we can identify a relation<br>
in the basic network. The proposal is to use route
relations with<br>
'network:type=basic_network'. Doing it with 'noname=yes'
would not<br>
express that and would not be unambiguous.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Could you please describe why this is urgent? <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>We are in the process of making the giant relations with up to
4,000 members manageable again and dividing them into one
relation per connection (see articles by Sebastian G.). On the
one hand, this is the chance to do things better. On the other
hand, we needed to differentiate between ways with only
signposts and ways with tourist cycle routes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx2cpNTT1_AHh-3fGPc2ZUx1k8da97GofX9DG1nnFfMSRg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">How would I assess that a bicycle
path is part of the "basic network" and not just an
"ordinary" bicycle path?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You can recognize it by the fact that the path is equipped with
bicycle signposts and is therefore part of an official cycle
network. The signposting in Germany consists of destination
signposts at the nodes of the network and intermediate signposts
with small arrows between these nodes. Both are equipped with a
uniform bicycle symbol.<br>
<br>
Not only are cycle paths part of the network, but also normal,
low-traffic roads. Not every cycle path has to be included if it
is not connected to the network.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx2cpNTT1_AHh-3fGPc2ZUx1k8da97GofX9DG1nnFfMSRg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Also, there was some discussion previously that a
bicycle path could be tagged as part of the "basic
network" on a temporary basis until it can be more
properly added to a route relation. If the purpose of
this tagging is solely as a temporary placeholder, then I
would not think it appropriate to approve such tagging as
we should not be promoting temporary tagging.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Today it is common practice to tag 'lwn=yes' on paths
with hiking routes. This is simple and straightforward and
is often enough and can stay that way.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The wording aimed at the fact that it is OK to transfer a
'lcn=basic_network' on the ways into a relation with
'network:type=basic_network' and thus to take it to the next
level. It would be less nice to delete relations and write
it back to the ways.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Maybe I have to rephrase here as well.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx2cpNTT1_AHh-3fGPc2ZUx1k8da97GofX9DG1nnFfMSRg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I apologize again in advance for what is probably a
cultural misunderstanding of the "basic network" concept,
but I am still left with the impression that such features
can be adequately tagged with existing tagging for cycle
routes and cycleways, including the noname=* tag and the
network=*cn tagging.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think that's good. That shows me where I can do better.
Thanks for that!<br>
</p>
<p>'network=*cn/*wn' describes the extent of the routes or the
entire network. This is something else. I want to express the
different types of signage and the associated messages.</p>
<p>I had already brought my arguments to 'noname=yes'. <br>
</p>
<p>b.r.<br>
Jochen<br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>