<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"> Am 28.11.21 um 12:03 schrieb
Peter Elderson:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t3KBmNXy3FzRyEs=NvCL-S4jArWieat4kZiV4b-Turtw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Sebastian Gürtler:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>If there is no ground truth, we shouldn't map, I hope
we all agree on that! <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<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"</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>The Node networks do not use superrelations. I think
you mean the network relations? The network relations are
not mandatory, the Node network system works fine without
them. So it would not be wise to count on them for a
different purpose. I would prefer sticking to tagging
either the ways or the route relations as "officially
preferred and marked on the ground with destination
oriented signposting". <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I meant the network relations, I didn't know that they aren't
mandatory, and it would get quite complicated to maintain it with
the help of knooppuntnet.nl without the network relations (despite
the fact that in Germany in fact these are collections - in NL the
regional network name is printed on the posts I think, in Germany
it is not...). Maybe the wiki <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging">Cycle
node network tagging</a> needs an update?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t3KBmNXy3FzRyEs=NvCL-S4jArWieat4kZiV4b-Turtw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the Node2Node routes are exactly the same as the
"officially preferred cycling" routes, you could reuse.
But I don't think so, even in Germany. Not every guidepost
is a Node network Node. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t3KBmNXy3FzRyEs=NvCL-S4jArWieat4kZiV4b-Turtw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Also, maybe the cycling Nodes in Germany are always on
the official guideposts, but for other forms of transport
this is not the case. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, that is only for the cycling network.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t3KBmNXy3FzRyEs=NvCL-S4jArWieat4kZiV4b-Turtw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>In addittion, recreational routes including
Node2Node routes tend to use different paths than
destination-oriented routes. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>- my point is that they use the same interim guideposting and
are not distinguishable without the guideposts on the
nodes/branches.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t3KBmNXy3FzRyEs=NvCL-S4jArWieat4kZiV4b-Turtw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I think even in Germany you would run into many, many
exceptions there!<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Getting less - in the last decades many municipalites created
their own systems which are now reduced step by step. Here in the
region you only have small traces of it.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t3KBmNXy3FzRyEs=NvCL-S4jArWieat4kZiV4b-Turtw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>But, you could say as a rule, that if and when a
destination oriented route is exactly the same as a
Node2Node route, you can use one relation tagged for both
purposes; network:type=node_network for the Node nodwork
and a different tag saying the relation also counts as a
destination based route. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, this I would suggest. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t3KBmNXy3FzRyEs=NvCL-S4jArWieat4kZiV4b-Turtw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Personally, I would prefer not to map this destination
based routing in areas where a full Node network system
exists. But that preference probably biased by the Dutch
situation, where one basically can count on roads being
cyclable or having cycleways at the side, with destination
based signposting everywhere. Mapping and rendering the
"basic network" would simply show every cyclable way you
can think of. </div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>The situation is really different in Germany... I can imagine
that it wouldn't make sense in the Netherlands. I can
characterize just the situation in my area, where the additional
ways to the named routes and the node network are not too many.
<br>
</p>
<p>Just for the city of Bielefeld which I checked completely, the
green routes are the numbered node network, the red routes are
"basic network". The thinner lines are named recreational
routes. <br>
</p>
<img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/3/33/Bielefeld_cycle_net.png"
title="network:type green:node_network; red:basic_network"
alt="" width="1095" height="922">
<p>As you see the recreational routes sometimes leave the numbered
node network and run over the other ways (e.g. in the north
east, north of node 81). These parts of the route have to be
distinguished from recreational routes from private operators
that don't follow the official guidance system. So I also mapped
these sections as basic_network. (I could prepare a map of the
district of Herford where you need to make these distinctions).</p>
<p>You can see that these red routes have different functions: In
the northwest to get from 29 to 6 or from 31 to 33 you can leave
the numbered node network and take short cuts. I think the
wanted just to reduce the number of nodes to reduce the
complexity of the network. Then you have other routes that just
follow big streets as quite fast ways (in the south from about
70, crossing the 19-17 connection) or from a point near the 78.</p>
<p>Some other routes are connections to the neighbouring districts
without numbered node network (in the south west from 43 and
33), mainly not intended for the everyday traffic but more
intermediate distance recreational bicycle trips (still
destination orientated, often touristic destinations).<br>
</p>
<p>Sebastian<br>
</p>
PS: while struggling with the image ;-) new mails...</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 28.11.21 um 15:57 schrieb Martin
Koppenhoefer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTAa-AM1X0f6Gsr64uHHnbhixAJztWnidynie-dKo4ufpw@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am So., 28. Nov. 2021 um
01:52 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <<a
href="mailto:zelonewolf@gmail.com">zelonewolf@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>It seems that the challenge here is that you have
all of these cycling ways which are certainly part of
an interconnected network, though they are not part of
any named and numbered route.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I see this as very simple - we have a tag for this,
network=lcn[1]. These ways are all part of a local
cycling network, so tag them that way.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>According to the wiki, the tag lcn=yes is intended for
"Designates that a road or path is part of a local Cycling
Network route", i.e. it must be part of a _route_. </div>
<br>
<div>Still we could have a tag bcn with a slightly different
definition ("is part of the basic cycling network" without the
"route")</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Martin</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
@ Brian: with the tag lcn you can't differentiate the official
network with the special rules for guideposting from many other
local routes that follow no official rules, sometimes only very
sparsely blazed with paint on trees and so on (e.g. the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2168153">Terra-Trails</a>).</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
@Florian:
<div class="moz-forward-container">All suggestions introduce new
tags or keys, which is in my opinion too much change to the
tagging. Even the initial proposal network:type=basic_network
doesn't add a new key, network:type has to be considered as well
established, at least in Europe, even with only one value so far.
The taggings need not sound logical and nice if spoken aloud, the
main thing is that they fit logically and consistently into the
existing database.</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container">guidance=destination_oriented;
conflicting with rare but existent guidance=magnet (which is not
quite good in the used place...)<br>
orientation=destination... Wiki: "<span dir="ltr" lang="en">Indicates
the orientation of the feature with respect to the flow of
vehicles or passerby"</span></div>
<div class="moz-forward-container">purpose=destination: too general,
just look into the taginfo what happens to such a key... you have
the following values: 1. adoption, 2. study_spot, 3. picnic" would
be funny to add "destination"...</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container">destination_oriented=yes - comes
closest to what I think...<br>
</div>
<p>I'd prefer less invasive tags using some preexisting structure of
the osm "syntax".<br>
</p>
@Martin:bcn would be probably also a possibility, I admit that I
dislike these xcn tags as here in the area it is very randomly how
they are used. And the distinction betwen local, regional, national,
international is a spatial categorization, bcn gives information in
another category.<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>