<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thank you so much. I think this is a quite complete summary of
the relevant points of the discussion and I agree.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.11.21 um 09:45 schrieb Peter
Elderson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+vCQ+jy88yOF1Y3NZGrQoKy9BHFSxrmkBqQZ9w+jroPHw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">1. The proposal that started this thread is being
reconsidered/rewritten, as I understand from the author,
JochenB.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. I understand that the core proposal is about tagging
that chains of ways have been selected by an authority as
preferential for cycling to destinations. On the road this is
implemented by destination oriented guideposting using
standardized guideposts and standardized waymarking between
the standardized guideposts. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. The aspect that the OP wants to tag is this visible and
verifiable official preference and the exact chain of ways
between the guideposts. This is different than tagging ways as
cycleways or ways fit for cycling. Correct?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+vCQ+jy88yOF1Y3NZGrQoKy9BHFSxrmkBqQZ9w+jroPHw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. There are two approaches: 1. tag the ways as officially
preferred ways for cycling; 2. add the ways to route relations
tagged as officially preferred cycling routes. Both approaches
have pros and cons, both are already used in OSM, but both
lack the "officially preferred" aspect. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
... as I wrote - I think 1 is not a good idea. (You also would have
to introduce a new key or add tags with ';' to other tags).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+vCQ+jy88yOF1Y3NZGrQoKy9BHFSxrmkBqQZ9w+jroPHw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>5. icn, ncn, rcn and lcn are used for recreational
routes. To me, using that to indicate the "officially
preferred" aspect does not seem right.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+vCQ+jy88yOF1Y3NZGrQoKy9BHFSxrmkBqQZ9w+jroPHw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>6. network:type is aimed at a precisely defined network
planning and navigating system, not a collection of
officially preferred ways. It doesn't seem wise to reuse
that for a preference indication for the same transport
method over exactly the same ways.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The basic network is not just a preference indication. It is a
precisely defined network exactly like the node network. You have
bicycle recommendations additionally for example with verbal signs,
the yellow deviation recommendations and so on. But the main problem
is that the basic-routes are not distinct from the numbered node
network, so you get overlaps, where there it is difficult to define
how to describe them.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+vCQ+jy88yOF1Y3NZGrQoKy9BHFSxrmkBqQZ9w+jroPHw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>All in all, I would welcome a separate tag which does
nothing more and nothing less than stating that the object
(way, relation or node) is officially preferred for
destination oriented traffic guidance. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. <br>
</p>
<p>Maybe I would change the description to "stating that the object
is officially marked for destination oriented traffic guidance" to
emphasize that only "tagging what is on the ground" is meant.<br>
</p>
<p>And one should have in mind that in Germany this will result in a
100% overlap with the numbered node network, so it would be easy
just to put the tag in the superrelations of the "node networks"
and you have accomplished the task for many routes. And this would
be possible with many of the recreational routes that follow the
basic routes. Mapping the basic routes could be limited to the
routes that are not part of other routes or to describe special
situations, e.g. the additional signposted section characteristics
("Routensymbole") which belong to the destination guideposts. (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Segubi/Elemente_NRW-Radwegenetz#Glossary_of_signposting">examples/pictures</a>)
<br>
</p>
<p>The main thing is that you could go with this tag more in detail
for the situation in Germany (for example to recommend it for a
tagging scheme on route relations) and use it on ways if it seems
better for other countries.</p>
<p>I personally would prefer a new tag more than using
cycle_network= xyz as 1) cycle_network is restricted to cycling
and 2) this would need adding tags by a ";" which reduces
simplicity.<br>
</p>
<p>Any suggestions for the tag instead of this
network:type=basic_network ?<br>
</p>
<p>Sebastian<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>