<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 20.11.21 um 01:48 schrieb JochenB:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cf37547c-91f6-4437-c1bf-7d7702879848@wolke7.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hallo Sebastian,</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 19.11.2021 um 07:45 schrieb
Sebastian Gürtler:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddbce914-7567-8d31-3a5d-b89fab954517@gmx.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
The situation on the ground is quite different for hiking and
the cycling network. The cycling network has official guidelines
that are introduced for all states in Germany and the districts
and communities are more or less bound to follow these rules.
The hiking networks have much more freedom. </blockquote>
<p>Yes, there is a greater variety of hiking networks in Germany.
Nevertheless, in most regions there are guidelines that a
uniformity can be identified within many regions. In
Switzerland, for example, it seems to be nationally
standardized.</p>
<p>The approach of differentiating between a network with
signposting and route recommendations does not apply to all
hiking trail networks. In some regions, there is a destination
signpost only on the route recommendations, so that the routes
completely cover the basic network. Then you don't need that
either.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddbce914-7567-8d31-3a5d-b89fab954517@gmx.de">
<p>The cycle network has no discrimination between the tourist
routes and "other routes". There is one network.</p>
</blockquote>
In the strict sense of the Basic Network, I agree with you. Its
signposting is usually aimed at all cyclists / pedestrians.<br>
<br>
In a broader sense, however, the tourist route recommendations
belong to the network (network = basic network + route
recommendations). The tourist route recommendations usually have
different target groups and are signposted differently outside
(symbols) than the basic network.<br>
</blockquote>
These symbols are only an addition to the destination signposting.
Any route orientated signposting that doesn't use the destination
signposts is deprecated (but in a little amount still existent) in
North Rhine-Westphalia, but I don't know the rules in the other
states.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cf37547c-91f6-4437-c1bf-7d7702879848@wolke7.net">
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddbce914-7567-8d31-3a5d-b89fab954517@gmx.de">
<p>For example: Destination orientated signposting: I start at
Bielefeld Hauptbahnhof <b>... </b>Arrived.<br>
<br>
What helps in discrimination between the route orientated
guidance and destination orientated guidance? Mainly the
following of the destination signs, not the type of the
relation. BUT: To follow them, the existence of the relations
is essential. Guideposts are not sufficient if you look at the
map where the routes go.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Well, some users prefer to orientate themselves at every
intersection using the place names on the signposts. Others prefer
to follow a route recommendation over a longer period of time. The
combination suits both of them.<br>
<br>
For the user, it does not matter whether the coloring of the
routes in the map is based on relations or because the ways are
tagged. But the information has to get to the ways somehow.
Tagging the signposts alone does not really do the trick. </blockquote>
Of course.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cf37547c-91f6-4437-c1bf-7d7702879848@wolke7.net">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddbce914-7567-8d31-3a5d-b89fab954517@gmx.de">
<p>Jochen, just to understand your proposal better: What exactly
would be your suggestion for tagging the parts of this
continuously signposted way from Bielefeld main station to
Spenge.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>According to the proposal, I would map all connections with
destination signage in relations. At least where there is no
connection of the node network above it.<br>
</p>
<p>The proposal regards the node network as a separate layer,
because due to the shared use of 'network:type', a connection
can be either a node network or a base network. Thought through
to the end, this would mean that both connections would tag it
twice. But I would do without that.</p>
<p>The alternative would be to note on the relations of the node
network that they are also part of the basic network
('network:type=node_network;basis_network'. <br>
</p>
<p>Then another key for 'basic_network' would be better. <br>
</p>
<p>There is always criticism of 'network: type' because "type" is
not self-explanatory. But I can't think of anything
self-speaking. Maybe like this:<br>
</p>
<p>'route:purpose=basic_network/route_recommendation'</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I didn't get it. Would you suggest to use the tag
"network:type=basic_network" for all the 24 (?) internodal
segments or only for those that are not part of any of the other
routes or relations? (about the half of them) The other segments
can be part of the numbered node network and/or part of a named
route. But the named routes also can be routes that are not
according to the signposting guidelines in their whole. So I don't
know at the moment how to describe in OSM that you can rely in
these sections on the standardized signposting.</p>
<p>I just saw, that all my links were in openstreetmap which is
useless for my explanations as it's difficult to see the routes...
I had to use waymarkedtrails, so I add the whole list below
anew... Sorry.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cf37547c-91f6-4437-c1bf-7d7702879848@wolke7.net">
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddbce914-7567-8d31-3a5d-b89fab954517@gmx.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:42b4d41c-68e7-1203-77cb-24ec65766928@wolke7.net">
<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>
</blockquote>
I repeat myself: In the case of the cycling network there are no
specific "basic" routes, there is no heart of the matter in it.
The routes are all equivalent and it is just by chance and
decision of the tourism departments which ways of the network
they want to recommend as a touristic route and which not - or
if they want to extend the network for whatever purpose.<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately I do not understand that. The routes of the basic
network are of course all the same, that's the core of the
matter.<br>
</p>
<p>The tourist routes differ from the routes of the basic network
in terms of target group, the existence of firmly defined start
and end points (or circular route), the type of signposting and
the ability to refer. For "are all equivalent " there are quite
a few differences.</p>
<p>If the connections of the basic network and route
recommendations overlap, both use the same infrastructure there,
that is logical.</p>
</blockquote>
I repeat myself: They don't overlap by chance. At last in North
Rhine-Westfalia new official routes have to "overlap" to 100%. And
in the 90's early concepts this was recommended. So you can expect
that this substantial overlap will increase and it has to be dealt
with.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cf37547c-91f6-4437-c1bf-7d7702879848@wolke7.net"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddbce914-7567-8d31-3a5d-b89fab954517@gmx.de">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 19.11.21 um 01:56 schrieb
JochenB:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8778093d-24ba-b965-a9c3-02a0e62d6972@wolke7.net">In
almost every cycling concept of the German federal states it
is <br>
stated that they want to create a network of ways that are
well suited <br>
for cycling and that are provided with standardized
signposting. The aim <br>
is to promote cycling in general. That is the basic network. <br>
<br>
In addition, tourist routes are created and marketed with the
aim of <br>
getting tourists to travel along them, relax and spend money.
<br>
<br>
Both are already recorded in many countries and are visible on
the maps. <br>
<br>
The only problem is that both were recorded with the same
tagging scheme. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>... this is no surprise, as they are signposted with the same
scheme! The tourist routes are not an addition but are
integrated in the other system.</p>
</blockquote>
Now you've lost me<br>
<br>
The tourist routes are signposted in almost all German federal
states by small symbol signs. The cycling network through the
destination signpost. They are two very different things.<br>
<br>
Yes, both complement each other wonderfully and both offers are
part of a well thought-out system. But the differences between the
two types of signage could hardly be greater. </blockquote>
<p>Hmm. I wouldn't talk about it that way. It is intended that the
route orientated system should use the destination orientated
system. The named routes are supposed to be made of the basic
segments (which can also be quite complicated routes) of the
network. The fuzzy thing is that you can't rely on it completely
and there are still exceptions - and will probably always be,
espacially if I try to generalize the concept as a tagging scheme.</p>
<p>I only try to find a way to create a representation of this
system in OSM which makes it possible to create maps of it.</p>
<p>The possibilities then would be huge: the user may decide whether
he wants to show only named routes, render different types of
sections differently (inclines, leisure routes, fast bicycle ways
etc.). All this information is given from the signposts so you
have an ideal base for OSM: verifyability! You won't have to
discuss from which amount of inclination you would tag it or how
you get to the information, you just use the information of the
signposts. You will have the strong disadvantage that this
information is sparse and sometimes maybe misleading or even
wrong. But it is easily verifyable. That is the great thing of it
and I think worth the work. If you like to add other information
about the quality of the ways and so on, you are still free to
evaluate the additional information of the ways and you can chose
your own way of the interpretation of the tags or add other
geodata.<br>
</p>
<p>Sebastian</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><u>List of sections on the way from Bielefeld Hauptbahnhof to
Spenge from node (in the sense of branch, not of named/numbered
node) to node:</u><br>
</p>
Start: "Spenge 17 km to south". 6 route inserts, <i>means usually
that this section is part of 6 relations of named routes/routes of
the numbered node network</i>: 08, Pudding, Fußball, Teuto-Senne,
Weser-Lippe, Hellweg-Weser [The other branches on the direction
signs from this point lead to Lage, Bad Salzuflen, Herford,
BI-Schildesche]<br>
<br>
Node 08: "Spenge 17 km to west", 3 route inserts: 15, Pudding,
Weser-Lippe [Branches: Gütersloh, Werther, Campus Bielefeld,
Altstadt (+backwards directions)]<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7554134683"><br>
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7554134683</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 17 km NE, 3 route inserts: 15, Pudding,
Weser-Lippe [Branches: BI-Babenhausen, BI-Gellershagen]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8754195177">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8754195177</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 16 km N, 3 route inserts: 15, Pudding, Weser-Lippe
[SchücoArena, Siegfriedsplatz]<br>
<br>
Node 15: Spenge 16 km N, 5 route inserts: Weser-Lippe, Pudding,
Romanzen, Aufspüren!, 11 [Obersee, Ravensberger Park]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7554134680">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7554134680</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 16 km N, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12622099">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12622099</a>)
[BI-Babenhausen, Nordpark]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8361368997">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8361368997</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 15 km NW, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12800588">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12800588</a>)
[Obersee, BI-Schildesche, Campus Bielefeld, Nordpark]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7573351545">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7573351545</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 14 km N, 1 route insert: 41 (part of relation with
network:type=node_network) [Campus Bielefeld, BI-Gellershagen]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8361368996">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8361368996</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 14 km N, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12622100">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12622100</a>)
[Obersee, BI-Schildesche]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7573351551">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7573351551</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 13 km N, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12656818">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12656818</a>)
[BI-Großdornberg, BI-Babenhausen, Obersee, BI-Schildesche]<br>
<br>
Node 98: Spenge 13 km N, 3 route inserts: 03, Silhouetten,
Weser-Lippe [BI-Großdornberg, BI-Babenhausen, Obersee,
BI-Schildesche]<br>
<br>
Node 3: Spenge 11 km N, 4 route inserts: 04, Malerisch, Engel,
Weser-Lippe [BI-Großdornberg, BI-Babenhausen]<br>
<br>
Node 4: Spenge 11 km N, 3 route inserts: 42, Engel, Weser-Lippe
[BI-Schildesche, Moorbachtal marked as "leisure route"
BI-Schildesche also backwards]<br>
<br>
Node 42: Spenge 8.7 km N, 1 route insert: 51 [BI-Jöllenbeck]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8663160568">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8663160568</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 8.5 km W, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12621890">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12621890</a>)
[BI-Schildesche, BI-Vilsendorf]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8399999055">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8399999055</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 7.9 km N, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12621890">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12621890</a>)
(branch at this place without end of relation! nowadays I avoid
that) [Enger, Pödinghausen]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8399999054">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8399999054</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 7.6 km W, 4 route inserts 07,06, Engel,
Weser-Lippe [BI-Schröttinghausen, BI-Jöllenbeck Ortsmitte]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8663160567">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8663160567</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 7.3 km W, 1 route insert 07 [Enger, Pödinghausen]<br>
<br>
Node 07: Spenge 6.5 km, 3 Route inserts: History 1, Herford 6,
Wittekind [Werther, Häger]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7700786088">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7700786088</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 6.3 km, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12691435">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12691435</a>)
[Enger, Westerenger]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620652">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620652</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 4.7 km, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797077">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797077</a>)
[Enger, Pödinghausen]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620655">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620655</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 3.4 km, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797078">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797078</a>)
[Werther, Häger]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620657">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620657</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 3.1 km, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797079">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797079</a>)
[Enger, Westerenger]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620658">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620658</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 2.7 km, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797080">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797080</a>)
[Werther, Häger, Westerenger]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620659">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620659</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 1.8 km, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797081">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797081</a>)
[Werther, Häger]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7009821694">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7009821694</a>
Guidepost: Spenge 1.3 km E, % route insert (basic_network: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12852976">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12852976</a>)
[Werther, Häger]<br>
<p>Arriving in Spenge.</p>
</body>
</html>