<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.11.2021 um 09:07 schrieb Peter
Elderson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+v8ZPTM75S+ioebfk+GuCy92PiW52VPQZNdpzx-mtabHA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">JochenB:<br>
<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">In the case of node
networks, 'network: type=*' is already used<br>
successfully. There, 'network:type=node_network' describes
the type of<br>
signposting. <br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, it doesn't! It describes the type of network using
labeled Nodes and Node2Node connection routes to guide the
walker, cyclist, horse rider etc through the area along a
prescribed list of labeled Nodes. Each labeled Node points
with labeled arrows to the adjacent Nodes, so the user just
needs to follow the arrow to the next Node on the list (or
node strip). </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That is exactly what I meant by signposting. Maybe that's because
of the translation tool. Basic network (destination signage) and
themed routes (route symbols) also have their own way of guiding
hikers or cyclists. All of these can and will be combined.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+v8ZPTM75S+ioebfk+GuCy92PiW52VPQZNdpzx-mtabHA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I think destination based planning and guidance is
regular routing and navigation, and in itself does not need
any special tagging. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It is not a question of whether routes with guideposts are mapped as
a special day on the routes or on routes. The question does not
really arise, because a large part of the network has already been
mapped and is the basis for many cycle maps.<br>
<br>
It is only a matter of making a distinction between the different
layers of the cycle traffic network with the different target
groups, network types and types of signposting. Today renderer have
no chance to distinguish this. 'network=*' and 'cycling_network=*'
are already aimed at other classification options that can be
combined with the basic network.<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+v8ZPTM75S+ioebfk+GuCy92PiW52VPQZNdpzx-mtabHA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I am fine with tagging <transport>_network for
national, regional and local network plans. Most of those I
see as road preference systems, aimed at channeling traffic.
I would translate that into some kind of quality indicator,
to be used as a weight indicator for routing. If it is a
collection of predesigned routes, typically with route
labels and indication of an operator, that's where the
<transport_network=* can be applied, I think, even though
I personally don't really care whose route it is if I'm on
the road. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
We need both, 'cycle_network=<country>:<federal
state>:<region>:<commune>' for classification in the
network structure of the federal states. In addition, we need a
distinguishing feature to represent the differences described.<br>
<br>
There are several dimensions in which networks differ and according
to which they can be classified. Mapping all dimensions in one tag
makes it complex. How would we eq. tag a network conceived by a
regional administration with a small spatial extension and a node
network signposting?
<pre>'cycle_network=<country>:<federal state>:<region>;node_network;lcn' ?</pre>
<p>I think that's better::<br>
</p>
<pre>'network=lcn'
'network:type=node_network'
'cycle_network=<country>:<federal state>:<region>'
</pre>
<p>Different types of clustering - different tags. In my opinion,
this is clearer, easier to understand, easier to evaluate and less
prone to failures.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+v8ZPTM75S+ioebfk+GuCy92PiW52VPQZNdpzx-mtabHA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>But is it worth it to break down the road system into
pieces between every guidepost,create route relations for
all the pieces, and labeling all these chunks with a
*_network=* value? It's a lot of work, it's a lot of
never-ending maintenance, and what does it actually achieve?
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What's the alternative? So far, all the routes in a district have
been put into a relation in an unstructured manner. The largest
relations have over 4,000 members! This is really difficult to
maintain. Many of these relations have therefore remained at their
old status and are no longer maintained. <br>
</p>
<p>Only breaking it down into manageable pieces makes this work
maintainable. In the end, it is not much different than with node
networks, only the node names are missing. I find this very
maintainable.</p>
<p>Refraining from mapping the official cycle network with
signposting is by no really an alternative. This is essential for
good bike maps.</p>
<p>b.r.<br>
Jochen<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>