<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Thanks Volker for the list of aspects.<br>
<br>
My proposal actually only relates to one aspect. But it is already
clear to me that I have to revise it and that I will describe it in
a more abstract way.<br>
<br>
In the proposal, I am referring to pedestrian traffic and cycling. I
think a definition of a basic network is not necessary for car
traffic, as there are no corresponding signs or they are already
mapped on the highway tags.
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR63qxAPmfcJricrN-CUCQ=RQzou7wU0U4C=vua3owD-rw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">We do not have a scheme for signposted
non-touristic bicycle routes, <u>...</u><u><br>
</u></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
There is already a method of mapping these networks that is widely
used. They are mapped either in route or in network relations with <i>'route=bicycle'</i>.
In some regions a <i>'lcn=yes'</i> is simply written to the paths
without any further information. The discussion here seems to me at
some points as if it didn't exist yet and we were in a green,
undeveloped meadow. But that's not the case where I'm on the move.
There are only two problems with this.<br>
<p>The first problem with the previous tagging schemes is that there
are two schemes for relations: Use of network relations (seldom,
use has largely fallen asleep) and route relations. Here my
suggestion would be to use route relations.<br>
</p>
<p>The second problem is that in route relations it has not yet been
possible to differentiate between route recommendations and the
rest of the hiking / cycling network. Hence the proposal to
indicate to the ways or relations of the hiking/cycling network
that they belong to the hiking/cycling network.<br>
</p>
<p>My proposal does not contain anything else at first.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR63qxAPmfcJricrN-CUCQ=RQzou7wU0U4C=vua3owD-rw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><u>We do have</u> ways of tagging road
infrastructure (ways, and nodes like obstacles and crossings)
in such a way that a navigation/routing algorithm can find
suitable routes, based on a set of technical criterions (road
classification, surface, smoothness. track type, speed limits,
...). <u>But we do not have</u> a tagging for generic "this
is road suitable for bicycles" signs, as they exist e.g. in
Germany, and in the USA.
<div>My understanding of the discussion is that the concept of
the proposed "basic network", is a subset of roads that
fulfill the criterion of being bicycle-friendly and are
inter-connected.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I would like to highlight one difference. With the proposed tag,
I want to mark that a way is officially designated as part of the
hiking / cycling network. It's not about giving personal
assessments as to whether you can hike or cycle here. There are
concrete measurable things that can be used to determine <span
class="VIiyi" lang="en"><span class="JLqJ4b ChMk0b"
data-language-for-alternatives="en"
data-language-to-translate-into="de" data-phrase-index="3"
data-number-of-phrases="4"><span>whether a route / a relation
should receive this tag: the standardized signage.</span></span></span>
</p>
<p>One can, of course, expect these trails to be hiking /
cycling-friendly. But that doesn't mean that they really are.
There are the individual properties that describe this, e.g., <i>'surface'</i>
and <i>'smoothness'</i>. I've already seen bike signs in the
middle of the finest sand that I couldn't even push the bike. As a
rule, however, this expectation is met.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR63qxAPmfcJricrN-CUCQ=RQzou7wU0U4C=vua3owD-rw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><u>We do not have</u> ways of explicitly tagging the
"beauty" of a road (something like the green line on the
once famous Michelin 1:200000 maps)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In the German bicycle signposting system, there are sometimes
symbols for this on the destination signposts. So there is
something measurable out there. This information can easily be
tagged to a relation of the basic network. I don't know anything
like that in the network of hiking trails.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR63qxAPmfcJricrN-CUCQ=RQzou7wU0U4C=vua3owD-rw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><u>We do not have</u> an approved way of mapping cycle
routes that are carrying you from A-town to B-town with
consistently installed signposts "A-town>" and
"B-town>", which we have also here in Italy (even though
maintenance of such signposting is often uncertain)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="VIiyi" lang="en"><span class="JLqJ4b ChMk0b"
data-language-for-alternatives="en"
data-language-to-translate-into="de" data-phrase-index="0"
data-number-of-phrases="5"><span>I would have mapped it as a </span></span><span
class="JLqJ4b" data-language-for-alternatives="en"
data-language-to-translate-into="de" data-phrase-index="1"
data-number-of-phrases="5"><span></span></span></span>normal
route relation with <i>'route=bicycle'</i>. If they consistently
identify the same destination, they can be provided with <i>'from=*'</i>
and <i>'to=*'</i>. What are you missing there?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR63qxAPmfcJricrN-CUCQ=RQzou7wU0U4C=vua3owD-rw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>but I am still not convinced of the "basic-network"
tagging approach proposed here.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What exactly does not fit? How would you differentiate the
network with signposting from the route recommendations?</p>
<p>I learned from other comments here that the tag <i>'network:type=*'</i>
is unfavorable because <i>'type'</i> does not contain any
information about what is classified here. That was the case
before my proposal, but I can of course propose a completely new
tag like that<tt>:</tt><tt><br>
</tt></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="monospace">route:purpose=basic_network/route_recommendation</font><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
or simply:<br>
<dl>
<dd><tt>basic_network=yes</tt><br>
</dd>
</dl>
<p>Is it better?</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
Jochen</p>
</body>
</html>