[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

[JochenB]

Am 28.11.2021 um 20:45 schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano:
> So is "basic" in this case of bwn/bcn supposed to mean "more local
> than local"?

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.

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.


> ...  I don't really understand what "basic" brings to the table that
> "local" doesn't.

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.

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.