[Tagging] cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

[JochenB]

Am 28.11.2021 um 17:38 schrieb Peter Neale via Tagging:
>
> Where I live, the local Council has designated a number of cycle (and
> walking) routes as "Super routes".  These generally run roughly
> parallel to main roads and run roughly North - South (Super Routes V2,
> V4, V6 etc) , or roughly East - West (Super Routes H2, H4, H6 etc). 
> These form a "network" ( a roughly rectangular grid) of routes and
> IMHO are more suitable for commuting to work, shopping,or generally
> "getting somewhere" than for tourism.  There is one relation per
> route, which is tagged as "lcn=yes"
>
> Other (non-Super) cycleways are simply tagged as "highway=cycleway"
> and I see no need to tag them, or collect them into a huge relation,
> as some sort of "basic network".
>
> There again, perhaps I still don't understand what the "basic network"
> is supposed to be....
It sounds like these Super Route signs mark an officially recommended
cycle network. However, they have a defined beginning and end, have
names and can therefore be distinguished from one another. This is
different from, for example, the German bicycle network or the Swiss
hiking trail network. There is simply a network of connections with
appropriate signposting, but without a name and a defined beginning and
end. Routes of a tourist nature or also for everyday cycling may then
run over it.

For us, cycleways are mostly paths parallel to roads so that cyclists
can get off the road. These can be part of the network with signposts,
but can also be individual islands without a network connection.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211201/28726368/attachment.htm>