<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 08:09 schrieb
Sebastian Gürtler:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e9259d3-db91-9a79-ab12-198badd7a0ea@gmx.de">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>The aim is to distinguish the (mostly) tourist routes from the
other hiking and cycling networks provided with signposts. I see
two main use cases:</p>
<p>A) One user wants to know where cycling / hiking is officially
recommended (basic network). In the German cycling network, these
can be recognized by the destination signposts with place names
and intermediate signposts with arrows. The user wants to
recognize these paths in order to prefer them when navigating<br>
<br>
B) The other user wants to follow a certain signposted route
recommendation (in Germany: symbols)</p>
<p>The basic network and signposted route recommendations are
usually mapped in OSM with route relations. Both often occur
simultaneously. Therefore, both must be distinguishable from each
other in order to be able to represent them differently.</p>
<p>'noname = yes' describes a characteristic that applies to all
connections in the basic network. That sounds good at first.
Unfortunately, it can also apply to route-based signposting.
Sometimes these routes only have a symbol and no name. This is not
uncommon, especially on hiking routes. Therefore, I find 'noname =
yes' unsuitable to differentiate between the various network
layers with their guidpost types. The lack of a symbol is also not
enough. Often the basic network also has a uniform symbol for the
entire network. In the German cycling network, for example, it is
the green or red bicycle. It is the red line on the Swiss hiking
network.</p>
<p>In principle, 'noname=yes' only describes a symphtom and not the
heart of the matter. It's a bit like tagging 'sign_color=blue'
instead of 'highway=motorway'. I find that unsatisfactory. Why not
call the child by name?</p>
<p>The question now is, how do you classify the route relations in
order to best reach the goal?<br>
<br>
I see several possibilities for classifying the networks:<br>
</p>
<p><b>The spatial extent (established):</b> local / regional /
national / international</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For this, the 'network=l*n/r*n/n*n/i*n' has prevailed.</p>
<p>This becomes difficult with close-knit networks. The individual
links in the network are often short. Since the networks are
linked to neighboring networks, the spatial extent of the entire
network can often not be clearly determined, sometimes it is
very large, up to national.</p>
<p>In Germany, this is different in every district <span
class="VIiyi" lang="de"><span class="JLqJ4b ChMk0b C1N51c"
data-language-for-alternatives="de"
data-language-to-translate-into="en" data-phrase-index="3"
data-number-of-phrases="4"><span>(</span></span></span>lcn: Relation
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/222581">Radverkehrsnetz
NRW, Kreis Paderborn (222581)</a> ; rcn: <span class="VIiyi"
lang="de"><span class="JLqJ4b ChMk0b C1N51c"
data-language-for-alternatives="de"
data-language-to-translate-into="en" data-phrase-index="3"
data-number-of-phrases="4"><span> </span></span></span>Relation
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/124706">Radverkehrsnetz
NRW, Kreis Siegen-Wittgenstein (124706)</a><span class="VIiyi"
lang="de"><span class="JLqJ4b ChMk0b C1N51c"
data-language-for-alternatives="de"
data-language-to-translate-into="en" data-phrase-index="3"
data-number-of-phrases="4"><span>)</span></span></span>.
Here, too, a uniform approach would be desirable.</p>
<p>The goal is not reached. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>The administrative assignment (partially established):</b>
<country>:<state>:<destrict>:<municipality>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In Germany, this is usually mapped using parent and child
network relationships, starting with the federal state. In
addition, there is an "invented" 'ref' value on the routes, e.g.
'ref=NRW'.</p>
<p>I would like to establish 'hiking_network / cycle_network =
<country>: <state>: <destrict>: <<span
class="VIiyi" lang="en"><span class="JLqJ4b ChMk0b"
data-language-for-alternatives="en"
data-language-to-translate-into="de" data-phrase-index="5"
data-number-of-phrases="8"><span>municipality</span></span></span>>'</p>
<p><span class="VIiyi" lang="en"><span class="JLqJ4b ChMk0b"
data-language-for-alternatives="en"
data-language-to-translate-into="de" data-phrase-index="7"
data-number-of-phrases="8"><span>The goal is not achieved
with this.</span></span></span> <span class="zEswK"><span
class="yieiFb"></span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>External characteristics (partly established):</b> e.g.
'symbol=no', 'name=no', 'no_ref=yes'.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The goal is not achieved with this, because the desired
distinction is not always clearly possible with these values,
see above.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Structural properties (partially established)</b> such as the
layer / form of the network: e.g. 'basic_network', 'node_network',
'line_network'; 'circular_route', 'honeycombs'.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is already an established key with 'network:type=*', but
so far only the one value 'node_network'. New values need to be
introduced.</p>
<p>For me, 'basic_network' is a simple network of connections with
associated marking / signposting and connected nodes.</p>
<p>The goal can be achieved very well.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>The way users are guided (not established):</b>
'destination_guided', 'symbol_guided', 'number_guided',
'colour_guided'.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A new key would have to be found for this.</p>
<p>The goal can thereby be achieved for the German application
cases.</p>
<p>In other countries, however, the basic network can only be
marked with symbols without any destination signs. Then it
doesn't work anymore.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>The target group for signposting (not established):</b>
'touristic', 'workaday_traffic', 'rehabilitation'.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don't know a key for that either.</p>
<p>The challenge here is that the signposting actually helps
everyone and it is often not clear who it is aimed at.</p>
<p>The goal cannot therefore be achieved.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't have any more ideas at first.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the assignment based on structural properties is
best.</p>
<p>You could use the keys 'network=*', 'cycle_network=*' or
'network:type=*' and introduce new values.</p>
<p>However, these first two keys already have their own definitions
with which the goal is not achieved. I would also like to use them
in parallel, especially the 'cycle_network = *'. Then you would
have to enter several keys in one tags.</p>
<p>'network:type=*' fits best because the already established key
'node_network' is also of a more structural nature.<br>
</p>
Viele Grüße,<br>
Jochen
</body>
</html>