<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection">
<div dir="auto">I can definitely see the value in a tag along these lines. I've encountered several situations where a city has a signed network of connections for cyclists, clearly directing people along particular roads/trails - but they're not point-to-point routes as such, and don't have names or refs. We don't have a good way of tagging these yet.<br />
<br />
Three examples I've encountered:<br />
<br />
Cambridge, England. There is a carefully planned network of connections, signed like this (apologies for G**gle): <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/6RQKGvNnVsFucBSD6" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/maps/6RQKGvNnVsFucBSD6</a>, <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/KPx5VHimVCVo99fP7" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/maps/KPx5VHimVCVo99fP7</a>, <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/yLaUeRjbNUUf3av37" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/maps/yLaUeRjbNUUf3av37</a> (connection to King's Hedges signed off NCN 51).<br />
<br />
These are currently mapped as <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12218549" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12218549</a> which is just wrong: it's not a "route" and it isn't officially called "Cambridge signed cycle routes network". But we don't have another solution.<br />
<br />
Cardiff, Wales. The signed routes were tagged as lcn=yes which worked fine for the local mappers until OpenCycleMap (for understandable reasons) stopped rendering that. The local mappers don't know what tags they should be using instead, and I couldn't give them a good answer.<br />
<br />
Flagstaff, Arizona. There is a network of routes, some of which are named but others are just connections, called FUTS (Flagstaff Urban Trail System): see <a href="https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/1379/Flagstaff-Urban-Trails-System-FUTS" target="_blank">https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/1379/Flagstaff-Urban-Trails-System-FUTS</a>. It's in OSM as <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2815833" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2815833</a>. It was previously mapped as route=bicycle, type=route; I changed it to type=network in 2019 because it wasn't a route. I am slightly surprised no one has shouted at me for that yet. ;)<br />
<br />
<br />
So we have something factual here that could be mapped, but currently no agreed way to map it. JochenB's proposal is a good start and identifies the issue.<br />
<br />
The main problem with it is that network:type=basic_network is really not a great name. It's not intuitive from the tag what it is; it could honestly mean anything. The second problem is that it's based on type=route, but that means 'point-to-point route', and these aren't - they're networks.<br />
<br />
So why not just do this:<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space:pre"> type=network</span><br />
<span style="white-space:pre"> route=bicycle</span><br />
<span style="white-space:pre"> network=lcn</span><br />
<br />
Exactly the same as a point-to-point bike route, but with type=network rather than type=route. It does what it says on the tin ("type=network", of which there are 3.3k already), it's simple, and it accords with existing tagging.</div>
</div>
<div name="messageSignatureSection"><br />
<div class="matchFont">Richard</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>