<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.11.21 um 02:32 schrieb JochenB:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:37fd4206-d6ce-9ea5-961e-72a8a595ea76@wolke7.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>For a better understanding I'd like to explain it a bit
different:</p>
<p>In the last two decades the state Germany tries to unify the
signposting of an official bicycle network. There are also some
special legal issues in it so not every existing bicycle route is
suitable to be integrated into this network but the official aim
is to include as many pre-existing routes as possible. The whole
network should use the simple bicycle-arrows for all routes, named
or unnamed. It shall use destination information at any branch.
Named routes shall be indicated only at branches with added signs.
These rules are still not completely followed.</p>
<p>This means that except at the branches or at places with
destination signs the routes according to 1 and 2 usually have the
identical route markers. I agree with Jochen that 3 should not
occur in OSM - there are many additional recommendations for
routes that are not visible in the real world made up by different
private and public agencies... That results in a very chaotic and
not maintainable network.<br>
</p>
<p>(There are still routes that don't follow these rules. These
mainly long distance national and international routes, old local
routes and some routes made by non governmental organizations.)<br>
</p>
<p>I think instead of the basic_network tag it may be possible to
use cycle_network=DE:xyz (unique tag like "official" or just the
code for the state signalling that it is the governmental network)
and noname=yes. This also implies the possibility to create basic
routes just by tagging cycle_network=DE:xyz without using a name=*
tag which I would prefer because the network system is changed
quite frequently and new named routes are added (it is very
simple, they just add route logos to the direction signs). So one
doesn't need to remove possible noname=yes tags on the way if a
new named route is made up.</p>
<p>Sebastian<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>