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

[stevea]

On Dec 1, 2021, at 12:27 PM, JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net> wrote:
> 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.

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."

> 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.

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?"  And what is meant by "route-oriented signposting?"  I am unable to reach your conclusion when I cannot understand its antecedent.

> 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.

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).