<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><b>Short version: </b>I agree with you almost completely, from
the first post. But this still does not solve the problem that the
proposal is supposed to solve, namely to determine the purpose of
a route / network. Obviously the suggested value is misleading.
That's why I have to reduce the proposal to the core and leave out
everything that leads astray. Thank you for this insight!</p>
<p><b>Long version:</b></p>
<p>Your lines show me that you assume that I want to name a certain
network and classify it. Yes, that's exactly what I intend to do.
And yes, the <i>'cycle_network'</i> and <i>'hiking_network'</i>
tags are wonderfully suitable for this. I understand your answer
and your concern completely and I agree with you in almost all
things, right from the start. I would even like to suggest doing
the same in Germany.</p>
<p>The problem with that is that none of this should be part of my
proposal. There is a tagging scheme for this, why should I suggest
something that already exists? So far I have not been able to
convey that there is another need that does not belong to the task
of "name a network and classify it".</p>
<p>That's why we talk at cross-purposes. It annoys you that I keep
going despite your good reasoning. It annoys me that you don't go
one step further to recognize my need, but get stuck where your
picture ends.</p>
<p>But I have an idea why it could be.</p>
<p>Cause: I'm not clean in my definition either. With 'network: type
= basic_network' I involuntarily express several things at once:</p>
<ol>
<li>The route is part of a network, therefore <i>'…_network'</i></li>
<li>This network is the lowest layer in the hierarchy of networks,
therefore <i>'basic_...'</i> in the sense of "basic layer"</li>
</ol>
<p>I'm pretty sure your criticism is related to both of these
aspects, because there has been a scheme for this for a long time.
And you're right, and I've agreed with you several times and said
"let's do it this way". At that point the discussion would be over
for you. And I see in your lines the increasing astonishment that
the crazy German insists on the new value anyway and more and more
persistently. Why does he do this?</p>
<p>I'm doing this because for me the discussion hasn't even started
here. I want to express two completely different things with the
proposal:</p>
<ol start="3">
<li>I want to tag the purpose of the network, which is to
officially mark cycle- or hiker-friendly routes using
standardized signposts - nothing more. Therefore <i>'basic_...'</i>
in the sense of "basic function"</li>
<li>I want to distinguish these routes from specific route
recommendations that have a different purpose and different
signage.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is something completely different from 1st and 2nd
(admittedly: that wasn't so clear to me at the beginning, because
it took your persistence). I'd love to discuss that core, but
you're always stopped at thing # 2 along the way.</p>
<p>In addition, there is the initial misunderstanding that my
description of the situation in Germany (different network levels)
was understood by many as the content of the proposal.</p>
<p><b>I now have an idea how to get out of this misery:</b></p>
<p>I will clean up my proposal and reduce it to the core. I separate
the 1st and 2nd. There’s your suggestion for that.</p>
<p>For 3rd and 4th I will address directly what I mean and only
that.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>3rd thing: <i>'route:purpose=basic_network'</i><br>
4th thing: <i>'route:purpose=route_recommendation'</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I could also be more radical and not relate the third thing to
the network, because it is not absolutely necessary. I could
delete the 'network' from the proposal for this. What is left is
this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>3rd thing: <i><i>'route:purpose=basic_route'</i></i><br>
4th thing: <i><i>'route:purpose=route_recommendation'</i></i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not a "lazy syntactic sugar". That is the reduction to
the essentials. Everything you want is already regulated in other
tags.<br>
</p>
<p>Can you follow me?</p>
<p>Can you live with this solution?</p>
<p>If so, then the only question left is whether <i>'purpose'</i>
is the perfect key name. In addition, whether there are better
values that describe the basic function of the route: "officially
mark cycle-friendly routes using standardized signposting". <br>
</p>
<p>The same question arises for <i>'route_recommendation'</i> for
signposted route recommendations.<i><i><br>
</i></i></p>
</body>
</html>