<div dir="ltr">How is the new mean and lean proposal coming, which just proposes a tag to be applied to either ways or route relations, to indicate that the ways or routes are visibly and verifyable marked als Officially Approved And Signposted To Guide Cyclists To The Next Guidepost, Where They Shall Find Another Clue?<br><br><div>BTW Nederland has those, but it would not be practical to map them because you can basically cycle anywhere you want and almost all major junctions have guideposts giving destinations, without intermediary shields telling you where all cyclists should go. </div><div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Peter Elderson</div></div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op wo 1 dec. 2021 om 23:55 schreef JochenB <<a href="mailto:JochenB@wolke7.net">JochenB@wolke7.net</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>
<div>Am 01.12.2021 um 21:44 schrieb stevea:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On Dec 1, 2021, at 12:27 PM, JochenB <a href="mailto:JochenB@wolke7.net" target="_blank"><JochenB@wolke7.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Am 28.11.2021 um 20:45 schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>So is "basic" in this case of bwn/bcn supposed to mean "more local
than local"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>A distinction between local and regional makes no sense here. The
networks of various cities (lcn), districts and federal states (rcn)
together result in hundreds of kilometers of nationwide cycle-friendly
routes (ncn). In most cases, it is not clear to the user who is managing
the network.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>I find "it isn't clear...who is managing the network" to be deeply problematic. Seriously? You mean there is nobody to ask "who put up this sign?" or "who do I ask to determine anything authoritatively about these routes / this network?" That strongly implies anybody could put up a sign (of whatever level, for whatever purpose) and OSM Contributors in Germany would insist we develop tagging strategies to denote...WHAT, exactly? I don't know, you don't know, it seems NOBODY knows. If true, this is a major failing. I simply do not know of a single (signed) bicycle route or bicycle route network in the entirety of the USA where this is true, and that's a LOT of routes and networks. There is ALWAYS "somebody to ask" EXACTLY who is "managing the network."</pre>
</blockquote>
Sure you can find out, but it is irellevant for most users. He wants
to know where the officially signposted cycle network runs (type A).
Other users want to know where route-oriented tour recommendations
go (type B). Since the two cannot be distinguished in the maps, we
cannot adequately satisfy both use cases.<br>
<br>
If we set the network tag based on the operator, we raise the
importance of the operator to the same level as 'network = *' for
classic cycle routes. There it is used to assess how long and
important tour recommendations are.<br>
<br>
I wanted to show that the length / extent is irrelevant when similar
networks collide or when the users do not follow a tour but put them
together individually.<br>
<br>
So one solution is to define it all as 'lcn' by definition. It then
needs to be differentiated from route-oriented tour recommendations
with 'network = lcn, because that is the motivation of the proposal.<br>
<br>
Hence my proposal with 'lcn = basic_network' for tagging on the way
and an 'xyz = basic_network' for tagging on relations.
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>There may be situations where local and regional networks differ
outside, e.g. in quality standards (asphalt), then a distinction between
rcn and lcn makes sense.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>... I don't really understand what "basic" brings to the table that
"local" doesn't.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>For me, lcn = yes is the same as network = lcn. Since both are used on
the same tag for route-oriented signposting, they are unsuitable for
fulfilling the purpose of the proposal. From my point of view, that says
it all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>I'm sorry, English is my native language (and I profusely thank all who post here for whom that isn't true), but the second sentence of that made little or no sense to me. "That" does NOT "say it all," at least to me, and I struggle mightily to parse your sentences (and proposal).
Do you mean "both are used AS the same tag?"
</pre>
</blockquote>
Sorry, that has nothing to do with English, that's nonsense in
German too. It should be called:<br>
<p><i>Since both are used for route-oriented signposting, they are
unsuitable for fulfilling the purpose of the proposal to
distinguish between </i><i><i>route-oriented signposting and </i></i><i>the
signs for the cycle network<br>
</i><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>And what is meant by "route-oriented signposting?" I am unable to reach your conclusion when I cannot understand its antecedent.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Look at this picture: <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Guidepost_basic_network_and_node_network_and_route_recommendation.jpg" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Guidepost_basic_network_and_node_network_and_route_recommendation.jpg</a><br>
</p>
<p>The destination-oriented route signs framed in blue are important
for Type A users. There are numerous connections in the network
where only this type of signposting is available. That's how it is
in the German bicycle network. Elsewhere, the network could only
be marked by a network-wide symbol, with no destination-oriented
signposting.<br>
</p>
<p>Then there are connections in the network through which tour
recommendations run. This is necessary for Type B users. Their
route-oriented signposting is outlined in green. From the
beginning to the end of the route, this symbol is only used for
this route. This route results in a line or a circle, not a
network with other routes with the same symbol<br>
</p>
<p>In the example there are three routes. Two come from the right,
one from the left. The signpost in the third direction is hidden
behind the mast. Presumably all three tours continue in this
direction.</p>
Both routes are tagged with the same scheme. It is indistinguishable
from each other:<br>
<blockquote>
<pre>type=route
route=bicycle
network=lcn or rcn
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color:rgb(0,124,255)">
<pre>If lcn = yes is to be used to mark the officially designated cycling
network, then we are back at the beginning of the discussion. How do we
differentiate these routes / relations from route-based travel
recommendations? So a tag is needed again.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>With cycle_network. Its values can include sub-tags (to primary tags that denote geographic regions, as they do in the rest of the world), which identify "this is this (regions, locality's...) PURPOSED network." (Like commuter, touristic, basic, et cetera).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
You feel like you keep trying to sell me swimming trunks so that I
don't have to bathe naked. But I keep telling you that I need a
wetsuit that will protect me from the cold. Yes, a "wetsuit" also
avoids public nuisance, but that's not my point. Even if I can
pull my swimming trunks up to my shoulder and write "wetsuit" on
it, I'll be cold.<br>
</p>
<p>I will give you to explain that the tag can serve its purpose
well, but is not very suitable for the purpose of the proposal.<br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>