<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<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>
<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.
<p><br>
</p>
<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'?<br>
</p>
<br>
<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>
<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.
<p>Grüße,<br>
Jochen<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>