<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 23.11.21 um 11:16 schrieb Volker
Schmidt:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR4xjKsX6mSvQVQ4dEgdpeFq_ZsH3axKoMcrO1OvKMQ_9Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>One important thing (at least for me) that is emerging
from this discussion, is an underlying, not documented,
assumption that I am making, and that i shared most likely
by all of my OSM cycling friends in Italy are sharing, but
that some people in this discussion are explicitly not
sharing:</div>
<div>bicycle (and hiking ) routes in OSM are touristic routes.
They are not geared towards "the safest and fastest
connection".</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It is not a matter of view of OSM users or cycling friends, it is
from the official guidelines. If you want to crop one homogeneous
network just to the "touristic" routes because OSM would only tag
touristic routes (why???) then it's exactly what Jochen tries to
do, to get an additional representation for the remaining routes.
<br>
</p>
<p>I just have a source for North Rhine-Westfalia, published by the
ministry of transport of NRW, but they claim to cite the Germany
wide guidelines.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.radverkehrsnetz.nrw.de/downloads/HBR_NRW_Kap03_Jul2019.pdf">https://www.radverkehrsnetz.nrw.de/downloads/HBR_NRW_Kap03_Jul2019.pdf</a></p>
<p>"<span style="left: 283.4px; top: 235.274px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.85815);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">Gemäß dem Merkblatt zur
wegweisenden Beschilderung für den Radverkehr der </span><span
style="left: 283.4px; top: 258.274px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.903758);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">FGSV (vgl. Kap. 1.3) kombiniert
die Radverkehrswegweisung in NRW die </span><br
role="presentation">
<span style="left: 283.4px; top: 287.474px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif;" role="presentation" dir="ltr">•</span><span
style="left: 291px; top: 287.474px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif;" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="left: 307px; top: 287.474px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.865112);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">zielorientierte und </span><br
role="presentation">
<span style="left: 283.4px; top: 316.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif;" role="presentation" dir="ltr">•</span><span
style="left: 291px; top: 316.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif;" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="left: 307px; top: 316.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.858392);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">routenorientierte </span><br
role="presentation">
<span style="left: 283.4px; top: 344.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.898282);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">Wegweisung miteinander. Sie wird
daher sowohl den Bedürfnissen des Alltags- als </span><br
role="presentation">
<span style="left: 283.4px; top: 367.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.899193);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">auch des Freizeitradverkehrs
gerecht (vgl. FGSV-Merkblatt, Kap. 2.1)"</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 283.4px; top: 367.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.899193);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">"According to the FGSV's
information sheet on signposting for cycling (cf. chapter 1.3),
cycle signposting in NRW combines the<br>
- destination-oriented and<br>
- route-oriented<br>
signposting with each other. It therefore meets the needs of
both everyday and leisure cycling (cf. FGSV leaflet, chap.
2.1)".</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 283.4px; top: 367.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.899193);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">This is not a matter of taste, it
is just the situation we meet. Me, I'm not very fond of
splitting the network logically, I'd prefer to have a unique tag
for describing routes of the network as part of the official
network or compliant to the guidelines. They are characteristic
and easy to recognize on the ground, quite similar in whole of
Germany. For this I could accept easily to use a
cycle_network=DE:official or similar. You could tag also
touristic routes if the follow completely the official
guidelines (which some don't!), and you could simply have some
routes without a name=* tag which were the
"network:type=basic_network" routes.</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 283.4px; top: 367.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.899193);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">The advantage of Jochens
suggestion is to fill the established (yes, in middle Europe
that's true) key network:type with a second possible tag (while
if I look at taginfo, it seems to be an invitation to confuse it
with cycle_network=*). cycle_network is only rarely used
worldwide at all as I see. You have 173k of network type (167k
of them node_network) and only 19k with cycle_network=* at all.</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 283.4px; top: 367.674px; font-size: 16.6px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.899193);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">And finally, according to the wiki
cycle_network "</span><span style="left: 283.4px; top:
367.674px; font-size: 16.6px; font-family: sans-serif;
transform: scaleX(0.899193);" role="presentation" dir="ltr">indicates
the specific route network to which a <tt dir="ltr"
class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route"
title="Key:route">route</a></bdi>=<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle"
title="Tag:route=bicycle"><bdi>bicycle</bdi></a></tt>
relation belongs", not a characterization of the guideposting
system. Tagging cycle_network=DE:official seem to me like a bit
abusing the tag for another purpose. <br>
</span></p>
Am 24.11.21 um 09:59 schrieb Yves via Tagging:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2A6DFBB8-F615-4205-B4EE-88D631B6DC85@mailbox.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Le 24 novembre 2021 05:10:37 GMT+01:00, Adam Franco <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:adamfranco@gmail.com"><adamfranco@gmail.com></a> a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">how about defining a simple tag/tags
that can be applied to highway ways that are officially recommended?
`bicycle=designated` is an access rule, but maybe something like
`bicycle_usage=recommended` or any other keys/values that get at the heart
of what is being recommed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
You won't be able to reconstruct that these ways are parts of
specific node to node connections in one network. And finally I
prefer route relations (not as collection but single linear routes)
for maintaining purposes. It is quite difficult to reconstruct the
age of a route only by changesets, for changes can be applied to
other aspects of the ways not only the overlying route. And finally
bicycle=* tells something about the legal possibility for cyclists
which is another scope.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2A6DFBB8-F615-4205-B4EE-88D631B6DC85@mailbox.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Following this thread, I also fail to see why not. 'cycleway' comes to my mind.
</pre>
</blockquote>
cycleway=* is used completely differently, it has nothing to do with
bicycle routes but describing the material infrastructure concerning
bicycle traffic. That's not the topic in this discussion.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2A6DFBB8-F615-4205-B4EE-88D631B6DC85@mailbox.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">First relationships in OSM are that ways are connected together. Any cycling tool out there can take this into account to build routes, networks, or whatever representation showing the data in a meaningful way.
Not to say relations are not needed, but trying too hard to make a new relation type for each and every model fitting the views of a particular set of users or coordinators seems useless.
Yves </pre>
</blockquote>
It is not about routing one random way suitable for bicycles but to
describe a visible network as it is given on the ground, no matter
the specific quality of this in each single case.<br>
<p>Sebastian<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>