<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.11.2021 um 07:20 schrieb stevea:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1BD8BF54-6C8D-4EE7-BDC0-0B9279302E14@softworkers.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">... Right now begins a sort of crazy time where the calendar slows way down, little work gets done and people travel and gather with family and friends. ...</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It's similar with me. Grandfather is visiting this weekend, he is
alone and we are preparing for Advent with him and the child.<br>
<br>
I am positively surprised by the response to the proposal (even if
a lot is viewed critically), but can hardly keep up.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1BD8BF54-6C8D-4EE7-BDC0-0B9279302E14@softworkers.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">If say, icn=4, ncn=3, rcn=2, lcn=1 then basic_network would be 0 (zero) in this way of thinking about things (not actually using these numbers, just to illustrate how they relate to one another as layers / levels). I think we might agree there.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>There was also the idea in the German forum to map level "0" via
<i>'networc=bcn'</i>, that would fit this point of view. Roughly
this fits, but it is also not ideal.<br>
</p>
<p><b>Short version: </b>in certain cases it may be that the
specification of <i>'network=l*n/r*n'</i> makes sense, then it
does not fit.<br>
</p>
<p><b>Long version</b>: <i>'network=icn/ncn/rcn/lcn'</i> was
defined for classic routes that have a clear beginning and end. It
often contains two statements in one tag:<br>
</p>
<ol type="a">
<li>Statement about spatial extent (length of the route in
relation to the size of the regions / countries) <br>
</li>
<li>Adminstrive classification or jurisdiction </li>
</ol>
<p>This tag is not entirely clean either, because it expresses two
things at the same time.<br>
</p>
<p>In the sense of a), <i>'bcn'</i> would actually be another
level, here that fits very well. The other values <i>'</i><i>icn/ncn/rcn/lcn'</i>
do not seem sensible to me in a network with many connections and
thus many beginnings and ends. What is used for categorization?
The length of the longest or shortest connection on the network?
Or the expansion of the whole network? How do you determine the
extent of a network if the networks at the edge are linked to a
similar neighboring network. What is the added value that we
derive an <i>'</i><i>icn/ncn/rcn/lcn'</i> , it cannot be read
outside? Can't the data evaluators deduce this themselves? So it
also happens that the similar basic networks in Germany are
sometimes tagged as 'lcn', sometimes as 'rcn'. Examples:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>'lcn': <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2003649">cycle-network
Steinfurt, relation 2003649</a>; <br>
</li>
<li>'rcn': <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1771415#layers=C">cycle
network Dithmarschen, relation 1771415</a><br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>With <i>'network=bcn'</i> these questions would no longer arise,
it would be another layer.<br>
</p>
<p>With regard to b), it can sometimes be useful to specify <i>'network=icn/ncn/rcn/lcn'</i>.
This is the case when there are different basic networks with
different responsibilities, especially when the networks outside
differ, e.g. B. by different standards. So there can be a basic
network of nationwide connections (<i>'2-rcn'</i>) with <i>'surface
= asphalt'</i> as standard, in the municipalities an additional
basic network with different signposts (<i>'1-lcn'</i>), where
also <i>'surface = compacted'</i> is permissible. Then I would
use the <i>'network=rcn/lcn'</i>. But that would result in the
following:<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>'network=bcn;rcn'</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>On the one hand, it can be seen that 'bcn' does not completely
fit into the scheme <i>'icn/ncn/rcn/lcn'</i>, on the other hand I
find tagging two values on a key unfavorable. Therefore I would
prefer to use a different key or describe the individual
properties in individual keys, which distinguish networks or
routes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1BD8BF54-6C8D-4EE7-BDC0-0B9279302E14@softworkers.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">However, I honestly believe that you can denote the "purpose" of a network by adding a modifier to the value of a cycle_network=* value. Likewise for "THE" basic_network in a given jurisdiction.... cycle_network=DE:Bavaria:basic (or something like that) ... cycle_network=DE:Bavaria:tourist ... cycle_network:DE:Bavaria:commuter.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah, kind of like that. I would give the network a title. How we
call this and in which hierarchy we would have to discuss for
ourselves in Germany. The purpose of the network can be the
namesake (basic, tourist, rehabilitation ...), but it doesn't have
to be. In my german state Saxony, the basic network has an
official name "Rad.SN", so maybe that's what it will be and not
the purpose of the network.</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>'cycle_network=DE:Saxony:Rad.SN' </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly you can also specify properties of the routes or
networks in <i>'cycle_network'</i>, such as the purpose of a
route. The question is, is it the best place for it? I mean it's
not the best place.</p>
<p><b>Example:
</b>In Bavaria the basic bicycle network has a green bicycle as
its symbol. We could agree in Germany to designate the network as
follows: <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>'cycle_network=DE:Bavaria:network green cycle' </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>or similar. Let's imagine a data consumer wants to display color
and symbol. He should know to look for the network name in <i>'cycle_network'</i>.
We would have to document in the wiki at 'cycle_network' that in
Germany these properties are mapped in the network name, the color
comes after "network" and the symbol after the color. The data
evaluator would have to program Germany-specific rules. In the
wiki we would have to document all such country-specific rules for
<i>'cycle_network'</i>.</p>
<p>I think it becomes clear that you should use the key <i>'symbol=*'</i>,
even if you find the symbol and color in the name of the network.<br>
</p>
<p>It is the same with the purpose of a route / network. In Germany
we can use the purpose as the name of the network in <i>'cycle_network'</i>.
That would be a country-specific solution. That is OK here,
because names are naturally country-specific.</p>
<p>The aim of the proposal was to enable the renderer to display
tourist routes differently than basic connections. However, it
should not have to derive the purpose from a country-specific
name. It is better to specify this property using a key that
represents only this property as far as possible and that can be
used worldwide where similar situations arise. Ideally, it can
already be deduced from the name of the key which property is
being mapped.</p>
<p><b>Another example: </b>The need for a separate key becomes
particularly clear when the basic network has its own name, such
as "Rad.SN" in Saxony. From <i>'cycle_network=DE:Rad.SN'</i> it
is not possible to derive the purpose of the routes in the network
"Rad.SN".</p>
<p>So I'd like to suggest a tag that makes this distinction
explicit. That is the intention of the proposal that has now been
formulated. I have learned that it is better not to use <i>'network:
type'</i>, but to use a self-speaking key.</p>
<p>I would like to argue about this key name and its values,
especially on this mailing list, because key names and values
should be internationally understandable.</p>
<p>With that I would revise the proposal and open a new thread for
discussion.</p>
<p>Best regards, <br>
Jochen<br>
</p>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>