[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'

[Sebastian Gürtler]

Am 30.11.21 um 17:57 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:
> I think that, once again, a few contributors are confusing the
> physical way of a cycle path with a defined route which may be routed
> over numerous different ways (cycle path, bridleways, roads etc) which
> is defined in OSM with route relations.
>
> Destination signboards, as shown in Jochen's examples are not cycle
> routes. They just indicate a city/town & can be traveled there by
> bicycle.
>
> A route without a name/ref isn't a route.
>
For a route it is sufficient to have beginning and end and that in
between it is clearly marked and guideposted. That is exactly the point
in the proposal for the "basic_network": how to map these routes.

The discussion is not about whether to map these as routes (which is
done for more than a decade here) but how.

And as stated by many: If we look at the purpose of the routes we
usually see that they can be used by commuters as well as by tourists.
So it takes no wonder that they can overlap. Whether you have distinct
networks or just independent routes or a mix of both depends on the
situation in the region. It would be nice to find some tags that could
be used more generally. At the moment it seems that any country or even
region has its own schemes. It could be helpful if the new or updated
definition of the related tags doesn't interfere with the former
taggings. That would surely improve the acceptance and reduces the risk
of destroying any relevant existing information.

Sebastian